Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 26 January.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Larne-Belfast Rail Route

Mr. Beggs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultation has taken place between the chairman of Northern Ireland Railways and the Northern Ireland Office on the reduction of customer services along the Larne-Belfast rail route.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): None. This is an operational matter which properly falls within the remit of the Northern Ireland Railways management.

Mr. Beggs: Millions of pounds have been spent on the Belfast cross-city rail link, which has enhanced links between Larne and Belfast. Northern Ireland Railways has reduced services and abolished even request stops at Glynn and Magheramorne in my constituency. How does that contribute to the Minister's transport policy for Northern Ireland? How does Northern Ireland Railways expect to increase customer use by preventing access to the rail link? Will the Minister ask Northern Ireland Railways to review the decision?

Mr. Moss: I understand that market research undertaken by Northern Ireland Railways suggested that long-haul business could be generated by a reduction in running times through rationalisation of the intermediate stops. The hon. Gentleman referred to the cross-harbour rail link; he will be pleased to note that there has been a 10 per cent. increase in passenger journeys on the Belfast-Larne line since it was opened last November.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that improvement in the economic geography of Northern Ireland, including development of its rail and other transport systems, will help to continue to reduce unemployment? Does my hon. Friend share my joy that the level of unemployment in Northern Ireland is now at its lowest for 13 years? Does he recall that the last time Northern Ireland's unemployment was at the same level as Great Britain's was in 1968, before the troubles started?

Mr. Moss: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. That is the best news that Northern Ireland has had for many years.

Ceasefire

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest position on the ceasefire by paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Four and a half months have elapsed since the IRA's ceasefire and three since that of the Loyalists. Everyone welcomes that. We must now secure that violence in Northern Ireland is over for good, and that means that the so-called punishment beatings must stop too.

Mr. Winnick: I certainly agree with what the Secretary of State has just said. Does not the ending of a number of Army patrols in Northern Ireland demonstrate that, without terrorism, there would be no need for the Army to patrol in Northern Ireland at all?
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is important, both for the ceasefire and in the overall national interest, that the Government do not abandon the creation of meaningful cross-border bodies? Is he also aware that there is a grave suspicion that the Government will act as they did last night, and abandon what is essential for peace in Northern Ireland and for good relations with the Republic to buy the votes of the Unionist Members of Parliament, who will then support the Government—as they did last night—so that the Government can survive in difficult circumstances?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman spoilt a good opening with a cynical conclusion. Of course he is right to say that we all look forward to the day when there is no need for the Royal Ulster Constabulary to be helped by the Army: the RUC, the Army and the people of Northern Ireland all look forward to it. But no change will be made except on the professional advice of my security advisers. That has been the case hitherto, and it will continue to be the case.
In our quest for a shared understanding between the two Governments—which we nowadays describe as a joint framework document—we are trying to find a means by which proposals can be made that will help the political parties to sit round the table together.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State concur with the view expressed by the assistant chief constable that the IRA should be kept intact? Did he tell students recently that the Sinn Fein leader should be propped up?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The RUC has a great record, which is a source of pride to everyone in Northern Ireland and in the entire United Kingdom. I think it very desirable, for example, for the RUC to recognise the need to examine the transition to peacetime policing—if I may put it like that—and, similarly, for the police authority to consult, as it is now doing.
As for the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I note that there is now a ceasefire and that exploratory dialogue is taking place. That strikes me as a change for the better, and I do not wish to disturb the trend.

Mr. Trimble: Does the Secretary of State share our concern about the repeated threats from Sinn Fein/IRA. to resume—most recently, earlier this week by Mitchell McLaughlin—and the rumours that the IRA is trying to


acquire additional weaponry, especially rocket launchers, and that the Deny brigade is re-equipping? Does he agree that it is now essential that those who said that this was going to be a permanent peace—I am thinking of the Dublin Government, the SDLP and especially the leader of the SDLP—should bring pressure to bear on Sinn Fein/IRA to prove that they are committed permanently to peace?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Any sign that a political party—Sinn Fein and the IRA in particular—is associated with a policy involving the use of violence for political purposes is extremely reprehensible, disgraceful and unwelcome. I do not comment on rumours, but I note that it is widely believed that the IRA continues in existence. Equally, I note that, with the disgraceful exception of the murder of Mr. Kerr in Newry, in November, there have been no deaths and no terrorist injuries since the end of August. That is something of which I am extremely glad, as is everyone in Northern Ireland. I want every possible influence to be brought to bear on all who have previously been associated with paramilitary organisations to persuade them to desist and to put violence wholly behind them for good.

Mr. Hume: Does the Secretary of State agree that we now have the best opportunity for lasting peace and stability that we have ever had? Will he confirm that, at the end of the day, the only way to achieve that lasting stability is by an agreement among our divided people which threatens no section of that people? Will he also confirm that private agreements or promises for the internal politics of this House would in that situation be utterly irresponsible? Can he assure the House that there are no such private agreements or private promises?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there is now a good opportunity—probably the best, certainly for 25 years—to secure a lasting peace. That does not, of course, rest with the Government alone. We wish to do all that we can to help the peace become secure. That is something that has to be done by proper, not improper, means. Equally, consent is the basis for stability in future and there is no point in the Government taking a course that is not likely to be sustained by consent.

Mr. Hunter: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the purpose of the framework document, which he mentioned earlier, is to promote round-table talks, and not to deter them, that it will essentially be a consultation and discussion document, and that it will impose nothing, as the agreed way forward is by consent, not by coercion? Will he confirm that any agreement that may emerge from discussion on the joint document will be subject to a referendum of the people of Northern Ireland?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I want this to be much more widely understood than it seems to be at the moment. Party leaders asked us—the two Governments— to set out proposals that would seem to be acceptable to them as offering the best prospect of getting wide acceptance across the whole community for a political accommodation which the parties have been seeking for several years. That is what we are trying to do. There is no question of trying to impose it. We shall offer it and if it is rejected, it is rejected; if it is accepted, it is accepted. We want to use

it to help them get back around the table again. As the Prime Minister said, the outcome of the talks process, if it is resumed, will be put to the people in a referendum.

Ms Mowlam: Does the Secretary of State agree that directness and openness are crucial for all parties as the peace process unfolds? If so, will he give a straight answer to the part of the question from the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that he avoided and to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), which he described as "cynical"? When things were ruled in and out of the framework document last night to the benefit of some people in the negotiations and for the electoral expediency of the Government, was it or was it not a secret deal that will create problems in the peace process?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The peace process is something to which everybody in the House is committed. There is no framework document. We hope that there will be a framework document, but a lot of work needs to be done before there is. The basis for any future arrangements in Northern Ireland must be one of consent widely shared across the whole community. That is what informs the Government's approach to these matters and will continue to do so.

Planning Law

Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to make changes in planning law in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Moss: A proposed draft Planning (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order in Council is under preparation. If approved, the order would come into operation during 1996.

Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware of the problems that have arisen in regard to the agricultural policy conditions which are attached to some planning permissions in rural areas? Would it not be wise to look carefully at some of the difficulties that have been created with a view to granting an amnesty? Will the Minister take the opportunity provided by the new order to tighten up the planning regulations to ensure that the underlying objectives of the present legislation are actually achieved in future?

Mr. Moss: I am aware of the problems outlined by the hon. Gentleman and of the need to take firm action to bring about a lasting solution. My Department is reviewing the agricultural occupancy condition and its enforcement, especially in the light of the recent planning appeals commission ruling. I refer here to the so-called Harvey case. I hope to publish something in the next few months.

Sir James Kilfedder: Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of resentment throughout Northern Ireland about the way in which planning law is implemented when, for example, planning permission is given for a development against the wishes of the majority of people in that area? Therefore, can the people of Northern Ireland, and people elsewhere if need be, have a right of


appeal when planning permission is granted, just as someone who applies for planning permission and is refused it can appeal?

Mr. Moss: The people of Northern Ireland have a right to appeal under the current legislation. I am proposing, in addition to the proposed draft planning amendment order, four subordinate pieces of legislation during 1995. After producing the review of the planning system, which I hope to publish in the next few months, we shall put it out to consultation; the hon. Gentleman will be able to make submissions at that time.

Mr. William O'Brien: When considering the review of the planning system, will the Minister have regard to the fact that many groups in Northern Ireland, especially the district councils, are remote from the planning system? If the Government believe in taking planning nearer to the people, will the Minister ensure that district councils have more involvement in planning matters than they have at present?

Mr. Moss: I should have thought that the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers would be part of the strand one talks that which will be taking place, and would be part of the agreement between all parries in Northern Ireland on the way forward for local government.

Peace Talks

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from Sinn Fein regarding progress in the peace talks.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: A range of issues has been raised in the course of exploratory dialogue between Sinn Fein and Government officials. Those exploratory talks continue.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Further to the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that now that Sinn Fein has admitted that it has influence on the IRA, it is incumbent on it to insist that the IRA makes a significant demonstration of its commitment to surrender weapons? Furthermore, it must end the punishment beatings.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree with my hon. Friend. Any influence that can be brought to bear should be brought to bear to instil into everyone who may think to the contrary that there is no place for violence of any kind—including punishment beatings—in the democracy which is Northern Ireland.

Mr. Maginnis: Can the Secretary of State give me a single area in which the IRA-Sinn Fein delegation, led by Martin McGuinness, has made a single concession or adjustment since 31 August? Is there not a danger, if adjustment after adjustment is made by the Government in response to the ceasefire, that the IRA will feel justified in the violence that it has used and that law-abiding people will feel disheartened? Is it not time that the Government stopped, studied the situation and attempted to see whether the books could be balanced?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Sinn Fein has got nothing out of the Government and the Government have got nothing out

of Sinn Fein. What each of us has got is dialogue with the other and that on the back of a ceasefire, which has lasted now for four and a half months. It should, of course, have come into force much sooner, but it is in force and we welcome it. That represents, I believe, an improvement on anything that we have known for 25 years and we must build on it.

Rev. William McCrea: Bearing in mind the continuing sadistic beatings of old and young people throughout the community, the daily threats and intimidation of our people, the continuing serving of exclusion orders on our young people by the IRA, the continuing robberies and racketeering, the stockpiling and moving of arms, the recruiting, the training and the active targeting by IRA terrorist groups which is going on, will the Secretary of State tell the House specifically when, during the present talks with Sinn Fein, the Sinn Fein delegation first, renounced violence and secondly, unreservedly condemned the murder of the innocent Mr. Kerr from Newry?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are far too many signs of a continuance of the use of violence for political purposes, not simply on the Republican side of the paramilitary spectrum, but on the Loyalist side. From either side, it is totally repugnant. We know that on 31 August there was a declaration that what were called military operations had ceased. Everybody knows, and the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein know, that the Government require that there shall be confidence that the ceasefire is intended to be for good. That is why substantial progress must be made on the issue of the decommissioning of arms in this exploratory phase. As a matter of reality, we cannot move from that phase unless that happens.

Mr. Mallon: I have been involved in the peace process over the past 25 years in South Armagh, long before it came into vogue. Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a perception in the Nationalist community which is damaging to the peace process, and that is that somehow or another there is a pan-Unionist front at work in Westminster? Does he also accept that it is unedifying—indeed, bad for the political process—to have his Government's nose tweaked by the Unionists almost on a daily basis? Will he assure the House that the Government will not respond to those bullying tactics every week? In effect, he now has the opportunity, for the third time during this Question Time, to state categorically to the House that the Government will not sacrifice peace or progress to satisfy their own party political expediency in the House.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course peace will not be sacrificed by the Government. The Government have done more to achieve peace than any other Government of any colour in the past 25 years, so I think that that charge will be rejected. As for the nose being tweaked, I have rather a large nose and I am not conscious of it having been tweaked at all. What I am conscious of is that in the Belfast Telegraph about a fortnight ago, the whole of one page was taken up with assertions that the Government were being hammered or were under fire by Nationalists and that they were being grilled or otherwise


mistreated by Unionists. That seems to be about par for the course and I shall continue, for my part, to do what I believe to be right.

Mr. Couchman: My right hon. and learned Friend has stressed the need for the decommissioning of weapons. Has he had any significant contribution from Sinn Fein, the IRA or, indeed, from the other paramilitary organisations on the other side of the sectarian divide, about the circumstances in which they would give up their weapons? Furthermore, can he tell me what seizures of weapons and what arrests for possession of weapons have taken place since the ceasefire at the end of August?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall not go further than my hon. Friend the Minister for State has gone, at the end of each of the sessions of exploratory dialogue, in describing what has taken place. However, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), who takes such a close and proper interest in these matters, that it is necessary to inculcate confidence in the people of Northern Ireland—not just in the Government—that the intention on the part of the paramilitaries is to give up, for good, violence, the threat of violence and the justifying of violence. That is why substantial progress must be made, in this exploratory phase of the talks, in the issue of decommissioning arms and making them no longer available for use.

Mr. Alton: Will the Secretary of State accept that many hon. Members have had considerable confidence in him and in the Government because of the way in which they have conducted the negotiations so far, but to maintain that credibility it is vital that the Government are not seen to be aligned to any group? The Secretary of State's failure to respond to questions that have been put to him legitimately this afternoon, and his failure to say that the Government are not involved in a specific agreement with one party in this House, will be read as a confirmation that they are.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. For my part, I shall continue, as I have done for the past two and a half years, to do all that I can to help all the political parties in Northern Ireland to reach an accommodation, because that is the only way in which stability can be achieved. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has said, that can be achieved only by consent. I have to have regard to what is likely, and what is not likely, to achieve consent when I look at the whole spectrum of the options available to the Government.

Welfare of Equines

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to ensure the welfare of equines; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): The Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 makes it an offence to cause, procure or permit any unnecessary suffering to any animal, including equines. Veterinary inspectors from the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland enforce this legislation and, where serious breaches are found, prosecution action is taken.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend assure me that no horses or other equines will be allowed to be exported

from Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland for slaughter for food or for onward export in defiance of minimum values? Will he also accept my invitation to join the pledge given to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), the former Minister for Food, that he, like me, will never knowingly eat a horse?

Mr. Ancram: I can certainly confirm that I would not knowingly eat a horse although I am sometimes accused of eating like one. In Northern Ireland, the horse is a much-respected creature both as a means of healthy recreational activity and sometimes as a vehicle for speculative, if often unsuccessful, financial investment. It is certainly not regarded as a culinary delicacy. Horses which are exported through the Republic of Ireland come under welfare controls which effectively prevent their export for slaughter.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Given the greatly increased population of the equine species in Northern Ireland, will the Minister consider giving some financial assistance to the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in its efforts to protect those animals from human cruelty?

Mr. Ancram: I shall certainly pass the hon. Gentleman's remark on to my noble Friend who has responsibility in that sector. However, there have been no prosecutions in Northern Ireland in relation to horses over the past three years. I understand that that is largely because people in Northern Ireland have an immense respect and affection for their horses.

Electricity Interconnector

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the Director General of Electricity Supply to publish his report on the proposed interconnector with Scotland.

Mr. Ancram: I am informed by the Director General of Electricity Supply for Northern Ireland that he expects to publish his report by the middle of February of this year.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Minister. Does he accept that the interconnector would result in a 15-year monopoly with electricity prices going up and job losses in Northern Ireland? As we now know that the Ove Arup report to the European Commission said that that was not the most economic solution, if the director general comes to the same conclusion, will not the Secretary of State be obliged to reconsider that misconceived project?

Mr. Ancram: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the planned interconnector project is being promoted jointly by Northern Ireland Electricity and Scottish Power, which are two private companies and which must make their own judgment. Two planning inquiries are taking place at the moment, one in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman knows enough to realise that, as


Ministers will eventually have to take a view of the results of those planning inquiries, it would not be right for me to pre-empt the outcome of those inquiries at this stage.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does not my hon. Friend find it astonishing to hear a Scot not wanting to sell something that is produced in Scotland? Is not that another example of not caring about jobs in Scotland?

Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend makes his point very well, but he will understand if I am not drawn into making a statement about the project in advance of the outcome of the inquiries.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Since the decision in favour of the Moyle interconnector between Northern Ireland and Scotland was made—the decision was certainly welcomed by most people in Northern Ireland—it has been announced that operation of the other interconnector between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is to be restored. That is the north-south co-operation which Ulster Unionists welcome. Will the Minister therefore tell the House whether the restoration of that north-south interconnector enhances or reduces the need for the Moyle interconnector to Scotland?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I understand that the two interconnectors will serve different purposes, because, in effect, the interconnector between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is for mutual support during temporary shortfalls rather than to meet future electricity requirements. The interconnector between Scotland and Northern Ireland is meant to meet the latter.

Market Testing

Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effect of compulsory competitive tendering and market testing on the delivery of health and social services and job creation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Moss: Following a market test, contracts are monitored to ensure that they provide the specified service at the agreed cost. I understand that, overall, those contracts have maintained or improved services and have shown significant savings. Market testing is about the best way of providing services; it is not about job creation.

Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for his reply, which is totally at variance with the experience of the people of Northern Ireland. Subsequent to competitive tendering, the quality of services has been reduced, jobs have been lost and conditions in respect of future employment and tenure of office have deteriorated. Does not that show a fault in the Minister's research? I also draw the Minister's attention to the current attempt by the Down and Lisburn unit of management to extend compulsory competitive tendering well beyond the Department's remit to include matters such as security, porterage, telecommunications, ground maintenance, meals on wheels and so on, without consulting the Department. The board refuses to meet employees' union representatives. Will the Minister intervene immediately to remedy that impossible situation?

Mr. Moss: Market testing in the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland, in all material

respects, is the same as in Great Britain. There are only minor procedural differences between the detailed implementation of the policy of market testing in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. The real impact of market testing has been on costs. Until March 1994, for example, more than £60 million of support services have been market tested, with identified savings of more than £11 million per annum. That money has been retained and deployed by the HPSS for the benefit of patients.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Is it, therefore, Government policy to squeeze the wages of lowly paid workers and to reward chief executives and managers for so doing? Does not that policy militate against the hands-on care of people in the community as well as of those in hospital and add to demand on the social security budget?

Mr. Moss: It may have been true to say that market testing was piloted in certain ancillary services, but, since publication of the White Paper, "Competing for Quality", in November 1991, market testing has been expanded into all HPSS support services. In overall terms, it is true that efficiencies have been achieved and the number of directly-employed staff has been reduced. It should be made clear that not all categories of staff have been reduced. For example, in the period September 1990 to September 1993, medical staffing levels increased by 6 per cent.

Mr. Spellar: In view of the Minister's health brief he will be aware of clubs' concern at the delay in the publication of his consultative paper on licensing. When will he produce that paper, and will he ensure full consultation with all those concerned, especially the clubs?

Mr. Moss: The related reviews of the liquor licensing laws and on registered clubs have now been completed. I have taken decisions on the changes that I propose to make and I intend to issue a statement next week on the main changes to be contained in proposals for draft Orders in Council. Those will be published for consultation in due course.

Framework Document

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of discussions with the Irish Government on a framework document.

Mr. Ancram: We continue to make useful progress; there are still important questions to be resolved. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State hopes to meet the Tanaiste shortly to discuss the framework document. We hope that a shared understanding of potential areas of agreement with the parties may be reached reasonably soon.

Mr. Barnes: The framework document is of key importance to future peace and progress throughout the island of Ireland. It is therefore to be hoped that elements of co-operation in the development of jobs and travel, for example, will be extended. For instance in Ireland, but not in Northern Ireland, there is free travel for pensioners. However, might it not be pushing things too far to say that


what should be developed in the framework document at this stage is a call for joint executive boards, which would present all the problems concerning sovereignty?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but, as he would expect, I shall not become involved at this time in detailed discussion of the framework document. It is worth remembering that the purpose of that document is to form a basis for a shared understanding between the two Governments, in order to bring the parties back round a table to negotiate a political settlement. It would therefore be unwise, to say the least, for anything to be in the framework document which would prevent the parties from coming to the table. We certainly bear that consideration closely in mind in our negotiations with the Irish Government.

Mr. Wilshire: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the framework document will contain no reference whatever to all-Ireland bodies that might have Executive powers over Northern Ireland?

Mr. Ancram: It has been made clear all along that relationships between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will form part of the three-stranded process of discussion, and that those relationships will be institutionalised. The Secretary of State has already made it clear that there will be cross-border bodies with some Executive powers, but that the centrally important factors will be the extent, nature, source and accountability of such powers. Clearly, hon. Members will wish to study those when the document is eventually published.

Dr. Hendron: Will the Secretary of State guarantee that, irrespective of the contents of the framework document, and, indeed, of that of the other document that the Government are preparing, nothing will be imposed on the nationalist or the unionist people of Northern Ireland, and that agreement and consent will be the order of the day?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The key to the whole process is agreement and acceptability. That is why we made it clear that the framework document will be not a blueprint to be imposed but a shared understanding between the two Governments, which we hope will form the basis for taking negotiations forward. After those negotiations, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, must come agreement with the political parties. And the Prime Minister has made it clear that even after that, before any outcome can be implemented, there will be a referendum for the people of Northern Ireland. So the whole process must ultimately depend on agreement and acceptability.

Ms Mowlam: Will the Minister try answering the question that the Secretary of State failed six times to answer this afternoon? If he does not feel up to that, perhaps he can reassure the House that items in the framework document will not, in the weeks ahead, be negotiated into or out of it according to the Government's electoral expediency.

Mr. Ancram: I am surprised at the hon. Lady's cynicism. I thought that she was going to bring a fresh attitude to her party's policy on Northern Ireland. I am disappointed that she takes this line.
The hon. Lady must consider what the purpose of the framework document is. It is not a blueprint; it is not a settled policy as between two Governments which will then be imposed. It is the basis for further discussion and negotiation. What is in it and what is not in it will be as much a part of those conversations and negotiations as it is a matter for the two Governments at this time.

Homelessness

Mr. Clapham: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he is taking to tackle homelessness.

Mr. Moss: The Housing Executive, having statutory responsibility for dealing with homelessness, arranges temporary and permanent accommodation throughout Northern Ireland. Its housing selection scheme gives top priority particularly to families accepted as homeless. The executive and other local bodies also provide extensive advice to those who are homeless, or who are threatened with homelessness.

Mr. Clapham: I am rather disappointed by the Minister's reply. He will be aware that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive completed only 810 units last year. He will also know that on 31 March 1994 there were 10,579 people listed as priority cases on the housing list. Shelter has estimated that there is a need to complete 2,000 housing units a year if we are to get to grips with the problem of homelessness in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Shelter? If not, can he tell us why?

Mr. Moss: I certainly do not agree with Shelter. The executive is building fewer new homes because demand for houses has fallen. Over the past 13 years the urgent waiting list has fallen from nearly 19,000 applicants to 11,100, and executive dwellings are readily available in many parts of the Province.
In 1994–95, the executive hopes to complete 830 new homes and to re-let 10,000 existing properties.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: All right hon. and hon. Members are most anxious that all homeless people should be properly housed; but what progress has been made in overcoming the problem of benefit fraud in connection with giro drops, for which Housing Executive dwellings are being used as cover? If those houses were brought back into the general Housing Executive scheme of things, greater numbers of houses would be available for homeless people. Will the proposed reduction in Housing Executive staff have no effect on detecting giro drops?

Mr. Moss: The Housing Executive will have total resources of about £541 million for 1995–96. I am confident that that will be sufficient to enable the executive to continue to deal effectively with homelessness and to improve housing conditions.
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about fraud. It is covered by the review that I am undertaking in my Department with the DSS, to ensure that we clamp down on this unacceptable activity.

Local Enterprise Development Unit

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has had from the Local Enterprise Development Unit about the issue of non-assisted local firms competing with assisted firms.

Mr. Ancram: None.

Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister share our fears that the Government's agenda for the Northern Ireland economy has not fully recognised the need to consult widely with local business leaders and community and voluntary groups in order more accurately to reflect the need to target available resources on area of special need?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is right about the need to consult widely on how to take advantage of the new peaceful situation in Northern Ireland and the beneficial effect that we hope that it will have on the economy of Northern Ireland. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister chaired an investment conference in Belfast before Christmas. There will be further consultation with representatives of the local councils in Northern Ireland shortly. We obviously wish to hear from others where best they think that any incoming funds can most effectively be applied. The Government have also made it clear that the targeting of social need in Northern Ireland will remain a main priority of our policy.

Peace Process

Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process in Northern Ireland.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) earlier today.

Mr. Soley: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the steps that he has taken so far in normalising the position in Northern Ireland. May I urge him to go a step further and end the use of the Emergency Provisions Act, which sits so uncomfortably in a parliamentary democracy? Will he consider making a statement soon that if the peace process continues all such emergency legislation will be ended?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said at the outset of his question. No one wants to see emergency powers available on the statute book in the United Kingdom save when they are necessary. Unfortunately, it is not the advice reaching me that the risk which it is the duty of the security forces to guard against has diminished to so great an extent that we are now able to do without the emergency provisions legislation. I do not think that the country and I certainly do not think that Northern Ireland would feel that that was a risk that we were justified in taking at this stage. I look forward to the day when it will be possible to meet the hon. Gentleman's wishes.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. French: To ask the Prime Minister if he 'will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. French: Is my right hon. Friend aware of evidence of another type of sleaze in public life, namely, local councils making substantial grants to quasi-charitable organisations which then use some of the money received to produce party-political propaganda in support of those who have made the grants? Does he have measures to stop councils misusing public funds in that way when at the same time they complain of shortage of funds for other purposes?

The Prime Minister: We all want to see a very high standard of propriety in councils and assemblies at all levels. I read with some interest the views of an ex-Labour councillor set out clearly this morning. He referred to
a mean-minded cocktail of political correctness, bureaucracy, intervention and abuse of public money.
The council in question was Islington.

Mr. Blair: Now that the Conservative Euro-rebels have published a public manifesto with a settled position on Europe which would effectively mean Britain's withdrawal from Europe, can the Prime Minister tell us whether there is any honest basis on which they can now return to the Tory Whip? If so, what is it?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman seeks to gloss over the fact that many views similar to those expressed by my hon. Friends are held by a large number of his hon. Friends, not least just below the Gangway and not least a little behind him. There are many and varied views on European policy in all political parties and right across the country. I believe that the policy that I have sketched out will carry with it the support of the overwhelming majority of the people in the country. [n the next few months we will spell out not only what is not acceptable in the intergovernmental conference but what we wish to achieve in the IGC in 1996. I believe that the position that we will take will command the overwhelming majority of people both in the House and beyond it.

Mr. Blair: Are we to take it from that, that the right hon. Gentleman will not even repudiate their views? After all, he is the person [Interruption.]—;

Madam Speaker: Order. We have little enough time at Prime Minister's Question Time without everyone making a row.

Mr. Blair: The right hon. Gentleman should remember that he withdrew the Whip from the Conservative rebels. Is not his problem the fact that he has one side of the Conservative party that is hostile to Europe, with its friends in the Cabinet, and the other side, with its friends in the Cabinet, which is favourable to Europe, and he is in the middle, never making up his mind? Does he not realise that that schism in his ranks will continue until he


makes up his mind, and that the damage will continue, not merely to his Conservative party or the other Conservative party, but to Britain and its interests in Europe?

The Prime Minister: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to remind the House how many policies he has changed during the past 10 days? I do not know whether he claims to have changed them, or whether he just parked them in the usual spot and they magically disappeared. If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about unity on Europe, I suggest that he tries to unify his colleagues below the Gangway and those behind him.
As a man who claims to be consistent, the right hon. Gentleman should explain to the House why, in his 1983 manifesto, he wanted us to withdraw from the European Community, and why he now wants to become a federalist, handing powers in one direction to the European Union and in another direction away from this House to regional assemblies that no one wants—yet another policy that he talks about, but does not understand and has not thought through. If he has made up his mind on anything, when will he tell anyone precisely what that mind is?

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend consider his responsibilities to that vulnerable group in our society who consider that they should have share options when others should not, the right to send their children to grant-maintained schools when others should not, and the benefit of their business friends receiving large pay increases to pay for their leadership elections when others should not? Does he not think that it is a duty of this Government to expose such hypocrisy?

The Prime Minister: I am more tolerant than my hon. Friend and I would like to help them. I will suggest a slogan that absolutely and exactly fits their present position: "Do as I say, not as I do."

Mr. Beith: While the right hon. Gentleman has fresh in his mind the experience of being saved from defeat by the votes of the Ulster Unionists, will he reflect on the possibility that, before very long, he may need those same votes on some purely English matter? Does that mean that he has excluded from his consultations the possibility of setting up a Northern Ireland Assembly with devolved powers, which would create a North Belfast question equivalent to the so-called West Lothian question, or does he admit that those constitutional niceties are what he uses as a pretext to deny more control over their own affairs to the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: Sometimes I despair of the right hon. Gentleman. He clearly does not understand the difference between a tax-gathering Parliament in Edinburgh and the re-introduction of a non-tax-gathering local government assembly in Northern Ireland—no wonder his party has been in opposition for 75 years.

Mr. Sykes: Is the Prime Minister aware that another subversive group of Labour Members today called for a devolved assembly in Yorkshire? While we do not mind

if Lancashire breaks away, may I assure my right hon. Friend that we in Yorkshire are proud of the United Kingdom and all we want is our ridings back?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware of that new ramification in Opposition policy this morning, but my hon. Friend should not despair because they will have changed it by tomorrow.

Mr. Spellar: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Spellar: The Prime Minister has just said, "Do not do as I do; do as I say". Does he recall that on Tuesday, he said, "We know who pays the Labour party"? He is right, because the figures are published. Will he now give a straight answer on whether he will publish the figures for donations to the Tory party, particularly foreign donations—yes or no?

The Prime Minister: On the day that foreign or any donors have 70 per cent. of the votes that determine our policy, the answer would be yes. But our policy is determined by our party, not in devil's pacts with trade union leaders to get the leader of the Labour party out of a difficult position on clause IV or any other subject.

Mrs. Lait: Should the reckless proposals by several of the Opposition parties to set up a Scottish Parliament ever be carried out, does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of hon. Members from Scotland should be reviewed down from the current 72 to 45, as set out in the 1707 treaty of Union? Would he care to nominate those hon. Members whose constituencies should disappear?

The Prime Minister: It is very tempting but perhaps not a matter for me. My hon. Friend, however, has powerful support for what she says.
After devolution, the position of Scottish hon. Members would be untenable."—[Official Report, 14 November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 157.]
it would be wrong for those from Scotland to seek to interfere in English domestic affairs after that watershed has been reached."— [Official Report, 1 February 1977; Vol. 195, c. 457.]
Before the hon. Gentleman at the back of Chamber shouts, may I tell the House that the words that I have just used are a quote from the hon. Member for Livingston(Mr. Cook). [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. We could all hear what is being asked if hon. Members were a little less noisy. Question 4 has been called. The Prime Minister.

Mr. Fraser: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fraser: Given the concern about negative equity and repossessions, has the Prime Minister noticed that the average cost of repaying a mortgage is to rise by £3.50 a week; residential rents are rising at twice the rate of inflation; and his Government have cut the housing


associations' development programme by 45 per cent.? How does paying more for housing and getting less fit in with his new vision?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, who has a great knowledge of housing, should cast his mind back a little further. He will have noticed that the average cost of a mortgage over the past couple of years or so has fallen by £140 a month as a result of changes in interest rates brought about by the Government's policies. He should also know that half a million extra people became home owners for the first time in the past year. I am afraid that he is behind on his facts and wrong.

Mr. Butterfill: Which particular clause of the treaty of Rome gives members of the European Parliament jurisdiction over British industrial policy, particularly nationalisation? Is it clause 4, or am I confusing it with some other document?

The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about the advantage of British control over British industrial policy, as we can see by the growth of exports, which grow month after month, and the fact that we now have the most broadly based, secure pattern for growth with modest inflation that we have seen in this country for very many years. That is evident in the growth figures; evident in the drop in unemployment and it is evident from the fact that that has been happening not for the occasional month but month, after month after month, after month and people cannot deny that.

Mr. Prescott: What about Maples?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman, fresh from his recent searches, should search again the unemployment statistics to see how they come together and then apologise to those civil servants whom he accused of fiddling them some months ago.

Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clarke: Is the Prime Minister aware that the proposed Assembly for Northern Ireland is accepted by

the whole of the House? Once that Assembly is formed, will the people who represent Northern Ireland constituencies be allowed to vote on every issue before the House?

The Prime Minister: No one is devolving to the Northern Ireland Assembly tax—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question"] I am explaining to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) why his question is based on a mistaken belief. No one is devolving to the Northern Ireland Assembly tax-gathering powers or exclusive control over education or health. The Opposition are trying to hide the fact that their policies would inexorably lead to the break up of the United Kingdom whereas our policies are determined to maintain the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hendry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, yesterday, the former leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) voted against the Government on the fisheries motion? Can my right hon. Friend enlighten the House on the rules of corporate responsibility as they affect European Commissioners? Is it in order for the right hon. Member for Islwyn to undermine his fellow Commissioners?

Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) is a Member of this House and the way he votes has nothing to do with ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Hendry: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can put another question, which I will accept, but ministerial responsibility must enter into it.

Mr. Hendry: Will my right hon. Friend advise the House on the role of corporate responsibility among European Commissioners to see whether it is in order for them to vote not only to undermine their colleagues but their wives as well?

The Prime Minister: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I had to give Prime Minister's questions an extra minute because the Prime Minister did not start until 3.16 pm, but it was hardly worth my while. Time is up.

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 23 JANUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill (First Day).
TUESDAY 24 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Disability Discrimination Bill.
Motion relating to the Local Government (Compensation for Redundancy) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 25 JANUARY—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill (Second Day).
THURSDAY 26 JANUARY—Opposition Day (2nd allotted day) (1st part). Until 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on mortgage interest relief for persons on income support on an Opposition motion.
Followed by a debate on the future of rural England on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 27 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
I am not yet in a position to give as full an indication of the following week's business as I would wish, but I hope that it will help the House to know that the consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill on the Floor of the House will be brought to a conclusion on Monday 30 January. I expect to provide Opposition time later in the week and there will be a debate on science in the second half of Thursday 2 February on a motion for the Adjournment.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet on Wednesday 25 January to consider European Community Document No. 11141/94 relating to reform of the sugar regime.

Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for the information that he has given and for the partial information that he gave for the following week, and confirm to him that it would always be helpful to the House to have information about the following week's business, even provisionally.
In view of the shortcomings of the Child Support Agency, which were identified today by the Parliamentary Ombudsman as mistaken identity, failure to answer correspondence, inadequate procedure, incorrect advice and delays, in a report which has prompted an apology from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), when can we expect such an apology to be made in the House and when can we expect Ministers to announce a complete overhaul of the Child Support Agency, as Labour has long demanded?
On another matter, in view of the press conference this morning which has formalised the split between independent Conservatives and the Government, in which the group of independents issued its own set of priorities—indeed, its own manifesto—and set out its own agenda, and in view of the inadequate answer that the Prime Minister gave in response to the question about political funding asked by my hon. Friend the

Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), will the Leader of the House find time in the near future for a debate on the need to define and register political parties?

Mr.Newton: On the latter point, as I am sure the hon. Lady would expect, I neither accept the suggestion that my right hon. Friend's reply was inadequate nor do I intend to seek to add to it.
On the Child Support Agency, I thought that the hon. Lady's remarks were marginally ungenerous, as the Government have already made it clear that they accept the findings of the ombudsman's report. Indeed, she might have referred to the fact that the ombudsman comments favourably on the significant improvements that have already been introduced by the chief executive which, he recognises, should bring general benefits. As for a statement of further Government policy on that subject, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security expects to announce the Government's response to the Social Security Select Committee shortly, and I am sure that that will help the hon. Lady.
I noted, and was again grateful for, the hon. Lady's remarks about my remarks on business. I shall, of course, continue my efforts to give as much information as possible about the second week's business. I am sorry that I have not been able to do as much as I would have liked this week, as a result of a number of uncertainties, but I shall continue to strive.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate about charities abusing their special privileges, in view of the decision by the Charities Commission to investigate the political difficulties of the Institute for Public Policy Research?

Mr. Newton: I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's point, but I think that I would want to study with great care what the Charities Commission has said.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Returning to the important issue of the future amendment or otherwise of the Child Support Agency, is the Leader of the House aware that there has been press speculation that the Government have now already decided that there shall be primary legislation to try to amend the existing legislation? Can the Leader of the House confirm, not only that we shall have a statement about that next week, but that we shall have a time at which we can fundamentally recast the existing primary legislation?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has much experience, and I do not suppose that hope has triumphed over it to the point of expecting me to comment on press speculation, but I have already said that my right hon. Friend expects to respond to the Select Committee shortly, and I am sure that that will resolve some of the uncertainties in the hon. Gentleman's mind.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent early debate on education in the county of Kent, given that, at the moment, we enjoy a range and variety of secondary schools second to none in the country and that, under the proposals of the Labour party, every school that we have that is different will be


converted to the comprehensive system, against the wishes of the people whom Conservative Members represent?

Mr. Newton: Perhaps my hon. Friend should seek out some prominent Member of the Labour party to send his offspring to a school in Kent. There appear to be plenty looking around to do so.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On the Child Support Agency, does the Leader of the House accept that a statement on the Social Security Select Committee report is simply not good enough? That law is ruining families. People are killing themselves because of it. It is wrecking family life and it is not good enough simply to come to the House with that narrow remit. A woman in my constituency who has cared for her child for eight years by herself has now, because of the agency's failings, lost custody of that child. It is causing heartbreak the length and breadth of the country. We demand a debate immediately on that awful law.

Mr. Newton: It is not all that long since the House had a debate on the subject in which, understandably, a number of strong views were expressed. I have made it clear that, as would be expected, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will respond to the Select Committee's report. That does not necessarily mean that his comments will be confined to points raised by the Select Committee.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the openness of information seekers? I was approached today, perhaps mistakenly, by the researchers of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who were desperately looking to find the dirt on directors. Perhaps they wanted the information prior to a statement to be made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East next Tuesday.

Mr. Newton: I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said. I do not think that he asked me for a debate next week, but if he did I shall have to consider it when I see what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has to say.

Ms Angela Eagle: May we have a statement from the Department of Trade and Industry next week, given the news today that Lady Archer is to resign from the board of Anglia Television, following the £80,000 profit that Lord Archer made on share dealings when Anglia Television was sold last year? The DTI and the President of the Board of Trade found no grounds for an investigation following those events, yet Lady Archer is now to resign. May we now have a statement from the DTI in the light of the new information?

Mr. Newton: To my regret the hon. Lady has simply, once again, as some of her colleagues have done, used the Floor of the House to engage in mud-slinging that she would not care to do outside. I do not intend to join her in that.

Mr. Peter Luff: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the Government's roads policy? While many aspects of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said before Christmas about the rebalancing of the programme are welcome, there is considerable concern in my constituency that it may

threaten the construction of the Wyre Piddle bypass? Such a debate would give an opportunity to put my constituents' minds at rest on the subject.

Mr. Newton: You, Madam Speaker, may share my view that the subject that my hon. Friend has understandably raised on behalf of his constituents might bid for a place among what look like being popular debates on Wednesday mornings. If I may say so without infringing on your privilege, Madam Speaker, I hope that you will bear my hon. Friend in mind.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is a statement next week about the plight of the fire services throughout Britain and the massive cuts taking place in all authorities due to the fact that, last year, a £43 million cut instituted by the Government was followed in this financial year by another £47 million cut for the sectors controlled by county councils? As a result, fire protection throughout Britain will be much reduced, stations will be closed and men thrown on the scrapheap. Is it not time for the Government to guarantee that that shortfall of money will be given to the local authorities so that those events do not occur in 1995?

Mr. Newton: It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman that I do not accept his description of what is occurring. The Government are concerned to ensure proper funding for proper services throughout the country. I expect the hon. Gentleman to have some opportunity to refer to such matters in the next few weeks.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Will my right hon. Friend find time, if not next week, in one of the gaps in the business programme the week after next, for the long-overdue debate on civil air transport so that we can discuss the importance of early privatisation of the national air traffic control services and the likely impact on the industry, both of the transport value added tax measure passed last week and the passenger departure tax?

Mr. Newton: I will of course bear my hon. Friend's request in mind, but clearly I can give no commitment.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask a question of which I gave notice to the private secretary of the Secretary of State for Scotland and his office? It concerns the parlous state of the Forth rail bridge. The Secretary of State for the Environment said yesterday that he would personally inspect that marvellous structure, and we genuinely welcome that, but may we have a statement about the Government's responsibilities in the matter? It is serious, and it is urgent.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who, with his usual courtesy, told me of the matter that he wished to raise.
I understand that responsibility for the Forth rail bridge rests with Railtrack, but, as a result of representations made by the hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland--who is Minister with responsibility for education and housing at the Scottish Office—inquiries are being made


of Railtrack by the Scottish Office about the maintenance of the bridge. I am sure that my hon. Friends will be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Will the Lord President find time in a busy parliamentary schedule to return to the agenda a subject that seems to have dropped off the edge—cross-rail? Following the magnificent work put in by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), and the great disappointment felt by both his constituents and mine after the measure fell through, it is very important that it is not allowed to be forgotten and continues to be debated in this place.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have recently debated, and will debate again in due course, another large project often linked with cross-rail—the channel tunnel rail link. I cannot promise an early debate on cross-rail, but I will certainly bring my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. David Clelland: The Leader of the House will know of the recent report from the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment, which concluded that building new roads generates extra traffic. He will also know that the Secretary of State for the Environment has drawn attention to the worrying levels of pollution in the atmosphere which are caused by traffic, and the resulting damage to our health. May we expect an early statement on that contradiction between the Government's transport policies and what was said by the Secretary of State for the Environment, so that we can clarify the position and make some progress?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that there is any contradiction between Government policies in those two areas. As in a range of areas of public policy under any Government, objectives—all desirable in themselves—need to be balanced against each other. I am, however, grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming, as I take it—and as I certainly do—the proposals for improving air quality announced recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. James Couchman: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on parking in central London, and particularly on the enthusiastic removal of cars from legal parking in the City of Westminster?

Mr. Newton: I am not sure precisely what my hon. Friend has in mind. Such a debate, however, would doubtless be replied to by the deputy Leader of the Opposition and we would all enjoy that.

Mr. Alex Salmond: May we have another debate on fish next week, and in particular on the 1,000 tonnes of fish that the Government are now reported to have promised Northern Ireland Members to shore up their sell-out to Spanish fishing interests? Is it a new 1,000 tonnes of fish, in which case I want to know who has lost 1,000 tonnes so that Northern Ireland can gain it, or is

it not—in which case, why are the Government conning Northern Ireland Members to shore up a discredited fishing policy?

Mr. Newton: I have two points to make. First, "sell-out" is a ludicrous description of the very successful negotiation conducted by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, as I thought last night's debate made clear. Secondly, that was an extensive debate in which the hon. Gentleman had plenty of time to make his points, and I do not propose to continue it this afternoon.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Given the huge public concern that has been expressed in the town of Brightlingsea in my constituency about the export of live animals, may we have an early debate on the subject? In particular, may we find out why Ministers cannot act under article 36 of the treaty of European Union because a subsequent directive has not been properly completed with the regulations below it?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend may have an opportunity to raise that point with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is due to answer questions next Thursday. Meanwhile, I simply point out that my hon. Friend knows full well that the Government are doing everything that they can to bring the standard of animal welfare in Europe to the level that we expect in this country.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On the Nolan debate, has the Leader of the House ever been lobbied himself by a commercial organisation at an unofficial or informal engagement since he has been in the Government—

Madam Speaker: Order. That is hardly a business question.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Nolan debate, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I am not concerned about the Nolan debate. I am concerned about next week's business and questions to the Leader of the House, which should be in order. They should have nothing to do with the Leader of the House personally or who he has met at any time.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. If the hon. Gentleman can put his question in order I shall listen to it, but I cannot allow a question that is wholly out of order.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sure you knew, Madam Speaker, that I wanted to get that point on the record. May we have a statement on the matter next week?

Mr. Newton: I am not entirely clear about the purpose or, indeed, the meaning of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I certainly do not expect to be able to provide time for such a statement next week. However, I have noticed that the hon. Gentleman is asking a great many questions on the subject.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: May I ask the Leader of the House to find time for a debate next week on the future of Europe to give us the opportunity to contrast the very welcome proposals made by the Prime


Minister for the intergovernmental conference in 1996, which include the notion that there should he no constitutional change, no single currency and significant deregulation in Europe, with the febrile, feeble and supine attitude that the Labour party adopts to the European Community, which would not only mean our ceding more national sovereignty but would lead to increased costs and the loss of thousands of jobs?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend outlines very effectively the contrast between the position of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and that of the Labour party. That notwithstanding, I do not think that I can find time for such a debate next week.

Mr. Roger Berry: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Prime Minister informed the House on Tuesday that the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill included measures to combat discrimination in the spheres of education and transport. He will also be aware that clause 12 specifically excludes education and transport. Will he therefore provide time—if not this week, next week—for the Prime Minister to apologise to the House for yet again misleading it on his position on civil rights for disabled people?

Mr. Newton: I see no reason for my right hon. Friend to apologise, given the part that he has played in bringing the Government to the point where we have produced in the White Paper a substantial package of measures to combat discrimination against disabled people. That package includes proposals for dealing with, among other things, transport and education.

Mr. Edward Gamier: Will my right hon. Friend find time at the earliest opportunity for a debate on British agriculture so that the House can express its full-hearted support for those who work in and for it and drown out the snipers who would do down that valuable aspect of our economy?

Mr. Newton: I cannot immediately undertake to provide time for a debate on British agriculture, but I certainly share my hon. Friend's views about the efforts of those who work in the industry and their contribution to the national economy.

Mr. Derek Enright: The Leader of the House will recall that during the debates on coal privatisation various hon. Members, including the President of the Board of Trade, made soothing remarks about ancillary property. Will he therefore arrange for a statement next week by the President of the Board of Trade on the fact that British Coal Property is proposing to sell in London in huge parcels medium-sized farms and allotments in my constituency and across the country, contrary to the interests of the little person?

Mr. Newton: I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's concern to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend will not have missed the fact that devolution has become a live issue. As the Opposition have now presented their proposals for devolution, does he think that he could make time available for a good day's debate

on them? If so, will he bear it in mind that, in the spirit of generosity, we should allow a free vote so that all hon. Members can express their true opinions?

Mr. Newton: I indicated in my opening statement that I should look to provide Opposition time in the latter part of the week after next. In the circumstances, the Opposition may wish to use that time to clarify their position. Whether they feel able to do so will be an interesting test.

Mr. Max Madden: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 413?
[That this House is surprised and concerned at the failure of Bradford Community Health Trust to publish the report of the recent inquiry into the escape by Raymond Pemberton, a remand prisoner accused of serious and violent offences, from outside a secure unit at Lynfield Mount Hospital last June; notes the honourable Member for Bradford West was told by the honourable Member for Battersea in a letter, dated 8th August last year, and by the honourable Member for Bolton West in a letter, dated 3rd August last year, that the inquiry's report would be published; further notes Professor Michael Schofield, Chairman of the Trust, in a letter, dated 11th July last year, told the Chairwoman at a local school governing body, that the report would be published; wonders who or what persuaded the Trust Board on 19th December to publish next day only the inquiry's recommendations; and urges that the undertakings given by two Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State at the Department of Health and Professor Schofield be now honoured by the publication of the inquiry report without further delay.]
Will he arrange for time to be given to the hon. Members for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) to explain why they gave me undertakings last August that the report into an escape from a secure unit in my constituency would be published? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a serious matter when two Ministers who belong to an Administration who claim to believe in open government collude with an unelected quango, the community health trust in Bradford, to suppress the publication of a report into a matter of important public policy?

Mr. Newton: My understanding is that the trust decided that only the report's recommendations would be published to ensure clinical confidentiality—to which, I imagine, the hon. Gentleman attaches importance—and to encourage those interviewed to be open and frank. Whether he agrees with that decision or not, it does not have quite the flavour of what he described.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend provide time for an early debate on the legal consequences of the ruling this afternoon by the House of Lords to uphold the life sentence against Private Lee Clegg for shooting a joy rider in a car which had burst through his patrol's position in Ulster? During that debate, we should discuss the fact that the ruling included the point that the yellow card, on which all our soldiers in Northern Ireland depend for their legal advice, had, in the


eyes of the British courts, not got "any legal force." Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that the House will discuss the matter?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will understand that, especially in a matter of this kind, I would not wish to make any comments on a judgment that I have had no opportunity to study.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Reverting to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), may I ask the Leader of the House to arrange for some Minister to make an urgent, clarifying statement, more especially since those affected are Britain's 6.5 million disabled people? Are education and the means for transport to be included in the Bill or not? In other words, was the Prime Minister right or wrong?

Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman will have every opportunity to make his points in the debate on the Second Reading of the Disability Discrimination Bill next Tuesday. I have made it clear that the Government's package as a whole, set out in the White Paper, includes proposals for transport and education. That is part of the Government's overall effort to improve things for disabled people.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on the disgraceful decision of Kraft Jacobs Suchard to close by 1996 the Lyons instant coffee factory in Greenford in my constituency, which it bought only a year ago, with the loss of 280 jobs? The House could then examine what looks disgracefully like asset stripping and the removal of jobs in a completely unreasonable and unfair way.

Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to provide time for such a debate. Again, it is a point that my hon. Friend might consider for the various Adjournment debate opportunities that now exist. I am sure that his remarks will be noted by the company at which they are directed and by my right hon. Friends.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Will the Leader of the House invite the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement in the House about charges for water and sewerage, not just to deal with the unacceptable 70 per cent. rise since privatisation, but to respond to a document sent to him at the end of September by the Water Services Association and the Water Companies Association asking that the law be amended or deregulated to allow water companies, where appropriate, to use council tax as a means of charging for water and sewerage? That request has been backed by more than 210 hon. Members. On 20 December, the Secretary of State told me that he would make a statement soon. Will the Leader of the House ensure that it is made very soon?

Mr. Newton: I will bring that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I support the call made earlier for a debate on fire brigades? During that debate, we could highlight the very high standards of professionalism which were shown last night in Maidstone by the Kent fire brigade in dealing with what

was probably the largest fire in the county since the last war. We would be able to join our hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) and the other Kent Members in congratulating those fire-fighters on their professionalism. Is it not also worth pointing out that the only way in which a fire brigade could be underfunded would be if the county council concerned shortchanged it?

Mr. Newton: I join my hon. Friend in his plaudits of the actions and the work that he has described.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: May we have an early statement about safety inspectors on roll-on roll-off ferries? The Leader of the House will remember that the inspectors were due to be privatised. Now press reports say that they are not, but there are indications that once the controversy has died down, they will be privatised. The policy is rolling about. It needs to be cleared up.

Mr. Newton: The important point about any such policy is that it should be effective in ensuring safety to the maximum practicable extent. I have no doubt that, whatever the regime, that will be the intention and the purpose of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Gary Streeter: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on how some local authorities are implementing care in the community, because I am genuinely concerned about the Liberal Democrats in Devon county council placing people in local authority homes at £400 per week, when those people could get better care in private sector homes at £200 a week? That is a dreadful waste of taxpayers' money and, of course, is in breach of Government regulations.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend expresses a concern felt in various parts of the country, including my area, which was the subject of an Adjournment debate a week or so ago touching on somewhat similar points. I shall certainly bring that concern to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motions 410, 411 and 412?
[That this House notes with concern the announcement by Stock Exchange on Wednesday 18th January that it proposes no action with regard to the conduct of Swiss Bank Corporation and its innovative market making activities; notes the extensive trading in derivatives and contracts for differences over the last four years; and calls on the Government to exert sufficient control over the regulatory bodies in order to prevent the further exploitation of regulatory loopholes.]
[That this House is concerned about the relationship that the Keswick family and Trafalgar House has with the Conservative Party and the Government in connection with Trafalgar House's bid for Northern Electric; notes that the sister-in-law of the Chairman of Trafalgar House is an adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; also notes that Trafalgar House has made substantial donations to the Conservative Party in recent years; and calls upon the Government and the Conservative Party to clarify its relationship with Trafalgar House and the Keswick family.]
[That this House regards with concern the conduct of Swiss Bank Corporation and its innovative market making activities; believes that electricity share hedging and


complex share option contracts entered into by Trafalgar House and Swiss Bank Corporation, which allow Trafalgar House to profit from movements in the share prices of RECs, create a false market; and calls for an immediate inquiry into contracts for differences share dealings and the tightening of legal loopholes which are being exploited by privileged individuals with no benefit to the consumer.]
Will he arrange a debate or perhaps a statement next week on the Swiss Bank Corporation and Trafalgar House and its dealings and takeover hid for Northern Electricity? There seems to be something fishy going on there and it has a hell of a smell. We need it cleared up.

Mr. Newton: I am aware of the early-day motions to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As I understand it, there has been an indication of further consideration of what are very complex issues and I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment further at this time.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his position and allow a debate on the party system, the conventions of the House and, indeed, collective responsibility? In doing so, will he allow us to debate the convention that a Minister who chooses to vote against his party should resign from his office, especially as it appears that in the Labour party, someone can fail to support his party on a whipped vote and yet remain a Whip himself?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) originally made the point, in connection with the debate on the Committee of Selection, that the sort of thing to which my hon. Friend refers could be done in the Labour party and that one would still be expected to vote. He went on to say that he did not think that it was fair that any such system should operate anywhere else except in the Labour party. I can see that he has noted my hon. Friend's remarks and is making various defensive noises, but I cannot quite hear what they are.

Mr. Harry Barnes: May I have a positive response to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Moms)? When the Prime Minister answered me on Tuesday he said that education and transport were to be included in the Government's Bill on discrimination against disabled people. He said that in a packed House and it went out to the entire nation. It was therefore believed that the Government's Bill applied to education and transport, when in fact there is a mass of exemptions in terms of education so that no funding authority is allowed to be considered in the areas covered, and "transport" does not apply to transport vehicles. In those circumstances, a statement by the Prime Minister, with the attendant publicity, is required or the House and the nation will be misled. They will discover that education and transport are covered fully in my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill which is to be discussed on 10 February.

Mr. Newton: I have made it clear twice that the Government's proposals in the White Paper include measures relating to transport and education. I do not think that I can add anything further to that.

Mr. Tom Cox: In view of the events in prisons over recent months, and the on-going concern and criticism by very senior prison governors, should not there be a full day's debate as soon as possible on the present system of running our prisons?

Mr. Newton: There have been two very full statements by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on related matters both before and after Christmas. The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) will be aware that very significant inquiries are now in train as a result. The sensible time to consider the appropriateness of a debate would seem to be when we have the outcome of the reports that are currently being prepared.

Mr. Adam Ingram: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to consider the shock announcement by Rolls-Royce today to close its aero-engine design facility in East Kilbride, which will throw 600 highly skilled design engineers and support staff on the dole? Were the Government consulted about the announcement at national or Scottish Office level? Will the Leader of the House provide time next week for a debate on the future of the aerospace industries in this country and, in particular, the damaging policies of the Government which have led to a major decline in a key sector of our manufacturing economy?

Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I cannot promise a debate. However, I understand that the background is that Rolls-Royce is very much committed to East Kilbride and 1,000 people will continue to be employed in aero-engine repair. Rolls-Royce will continue to employ 4,000 people at six sites in Scotland. I hope that the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) will be encouraged, both in relation to the company and the Government's policy, that the business has recently announced major long-term contracts with Cyprus Airways and China Eastern Airlines.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we have a debate on what has become known as the Blaby question on our decrepit democracy, which was exemplified last year when two Bills affecting only Wales went through the House, in respect of which 32 of the 38 Welsh Members were agreed, but which were determined by the mass of Members of Parliament from England and Scotland who had no knowledge of, interest in or responsibility for the areas covered by those Bills? Does the Leader of the House agree that Welsh and Scottish Members would gladly take responsibility for specific affairs in their own areas and forgo decisions in other parts of the country? We could then have assemblies in this country like the assemblies in Spain, France, Germany, Canada and many other countries which have a modern, decentralised system that does not threaten the unity of any of those states.

Mr. Newton: It sounded to me, interestingly, as though one Opposition Member has at last come forward with his answer, reasonably clearly, to what used to be the West Lothian question and which must now be regarded as the Linlithgow question. In that respect, the hon. Gentleman has done infinitely better than any of his right hon. or hon.


Friends so far. I, for one, would be interested to hear him put that question to the Leader of the Opposition, as it should be directed to him.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the decision by the Labour-controlled borough of Croydon to increase the density of housing in the southern part of the borough while the Labour-controlled London Boroughs Association has just published a document calling for the protection of the open spaces in London upon which Croydon council wants to build?

Mr. Newton: If I had to provide time for a debate every time there was evidence of inconsistency in the policies of various organs of the Labour party, I should do nothing else, but I am sure that my hon. Friend's points will be noted.

Madam Speaker's Statement

Madam Speaker: On Monday, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised two points with me about written answers. He first asked that I should make it clear that a written answer should not be made available to the press before it has been given to the Member who asked the question. I can readily confirm that that should be the case.
The present practice, which is well established, is that written questions may not be answered before 3.30 pm on the day for which notice has been given. Soon after that time, copies of the answer are sent by the Department concerned to the Official Report, the Library, the Press Gallery and the Table Office, as well as, of course, to the Member who tabled the question. It may sometimes be the case that the Member concerned is not in the House and that, therefore, he may become aware of the answer from press inquiries made before he has seen the text, but, in general, the Department should continue to make every effort to ensure that the Member gets the text of the answer no later than the press.
The hon. Member also asked that a Member whose constituency is directly affected by an answer should be informed of the answer as the same time as the Member who has asked the question and the press. There are no hard and fast rules about that, but I hold the firm view that, when a constituency or constituencies are specifically and directly affected by an answer, Ministers should seek to ensure that copies of the answer are given to the Members concerned at the same time as they are given to the Member who has asked the question and to the press. I hope that all Ministers will make every effort to observe that common courtesy in future.
It would also be a useful courtesy if any Member tabling a question directly affecting another's constituency—something which should not be done lightly in any case—took care to inform that Member of the action that he or she has taken.
A further related point was raised with me on Tuesday by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), namely whether, when a Member raises an issue in the House that affects another Member's constituency, he should inform the other Member that he intends to raise it. There is, in fact, a slightly broader issue to consider, namely whether Members should give advance notification when they refer to other Members in the Chamber.
There is, as I stated on 23 November 1994, at c. 598, a clear convention based on courtesy that notice should be given where such reference is intended to be made. I expect Members to observe that convention during debates and at Question Time when their reference is premeditated. There will, however, be occasions, especially at Question Time, when such a reference arises spontaneously and on the spur of the moment. In those cases, advance notification is unlikely to be practical, but Members should always consider whether reference to a colleague without notice is fair.
The House will have noticed that I am frequently—too frequently—called upon to deal with complaints on matters of that kind. That would not be necessary if, as I remarked on Monday, Members, including Ministers and


their Departments, exercised a little more common sense and forethought. I look to all concerned to do just that in future.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for that ruling, which I am sure all colleagues will regard as supporting the rights of all Members in holding the Executive and civil servants to account. May I ask a supplementary question on a matter which is not covered by your ruling but which touches the same general issue? Perhaps you can deal with it now because it is on the same issue and it is a matter that you have dealt with before. It relates to ministerial announcements and it is topical today because there was an example only this morning. It seems right to raise it now rather than to let it go by.
This morning in an interview on BBC radio the Secretary of State for the Environment refused to answer questions about his air pollution initiatives because, he said, he had first to give information to Parliament. In the event, there has been no statement, no answer in Parliament, and no written answer. In fact there was a press conference and a statement was made by the Department. I have heard you say before, Madam Speaker, that matters for Parliament should come here first, so it would be helpful if you added to the package that you have announced today a confirmation that when Ministers make statements about impending legislation, as happened at the press conference, the announcement should be made either to this place or by way of an answer in this place, before the press and the rest of the world are told.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not quite correct. The Secretary of State acted properly, and revealed in a written answer yesterday that copies of the Government policy document on air quality would be placed in the Vote Office and the Library at 9 o'clock this morning. That has been done. However, it is for Ministers to decide whether to make an oral statement to the House and whether to give press conferences or interviews to the media. In this instance the Secretary of State properly informed the House of his plans before holding a press conference.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Further to that point, Madam Speaker. I acknowledge what you have said, in that technically the Secretary of State had ensured that the House was informed, but you will be aware that, as often happens, the written answer that the Minister gave yesterday was not published in Hansard today. Although the Secretary of State may have been technically correct, he was not acting in the spirit of informing Members of what was going to happen. There is a problem when answers cannot be published in Hansard the following day, because Members are not then aware that a statement has been made, so they do not expect the information.

Madam Speaker: I think that the Secretary of State certainly acted in that spirit, as the hon. Lady said-—and the House is aware that a written answer cannot always be published on the day in question. This was one of those cases. But I believe that the Secretary of State acted properly in the matter.

Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you, in your capacity as the person with overall responsibility for the running of the House,

to investigate an extraordinary waste of taxpayers' money. As I expect you do not know, the sign on the door of the gents' toilet in the Members' Corridor was recently repainted. This morning a member of staff spent three hours removing the recently repainted sign only to put it back with letters ¼ in. smaller, for the sake of some aesthetic judgment made by somebody. That is an extraordinary waste of taxpayers' money; will you look into it, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker: Yes, of course.

Mr. Roger Berry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that I have written to you about my view that the Prime Minister misled the House on Tuesday regarding the contents of the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill. I am grateful for the time that you will spend considering my letter. Can you yet say when you may be able to respond?

Madam Speaker: No; as a matter of fact I have not seen the letter, and I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had written to me. Correspondence between me and individual Members should not be raised in points of order across the Floor of the House. When a Member writes to me I should be given the opportunity to read the letter and to respond, as I always do, as soon as possible.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Further to the points of order arising from your statement, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that it is part of the conventions and courtesies of the House that when shadow spokesmen visit the constituencies of Conservative Members of Parliament they notify the Member concerned of their visit?

Madam Speaker: Yes, indeed; I have made that very plain. The custom relates not only to shadow Ministers but to all Members of the House of whatever party—Back Benchers and Front Benchers, including Ministers. I made that clear earlier this week, and I am constantly doing so. As I said at the end of my statement, I hope that all concerned will apply a little more common sense and behave reasonably and courteously towards each other.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on what appears to he a change in your policy on parliamentary language. A word that, when it was used by Members, was described as unparliamentary by the previous Speaker, was used yesterday in the House and appeared in Hansard. I believe that you know what the word is; my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) used it to describe seagulls' droppings. Are more colourful parliamentary proceedings, with the use of that word in all its forms, now in order, or can it be used only as a noun and not as an adjective or an expletive?

Madam Speaker: As I have explained before, the English language has a very rich vocabulary. I would prefer some other word to be chosen, I am sure that most hon. Members can find other ways of explaining precisely what they mean. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) had used the word before I realised it, but he is such a courteous Member that I know it was not offensively intended.

Mr. Elliot Morley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, I raise


points of order in the House only rarely. I seek your guidance on an issue that concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House. I refer to the difficulty that hon. Members encounter when trying to find ways of replying to inaccurate statements.
This week my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) was accused, as a former Government Minister, of voting to restart live animal exports, which had been stopped in 1973. I have consulted Hansard, and it appears that on 12 July 1973 the motion that stopped live animal exports was a Labour Opposition motion, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East. Live animal exports were restarted on 16 January 1975, following the O'Brien report, with the support of the then Conservative Opposition spokesman on agriculture.
The House was thus misled by the allegation made by the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave). In such circumstances, how can hon. Members put the record straight?

Madam Speaker: There is always the Order Paper, either in the form of questions or of early-day motions. If the hon. Gentleman consults the Clerks, he may find other methods too—although he has already corrected the record.

Legal Aid and Advice

4.21 pin

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move,
That the draft Legal Aid Advisory Committee (Dissolution) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.
This debate is at the behest of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and I have no dispute with that perfectly proper use of parliamentary time. Tempting though it may be to stray wider, I shall confine myself to the rather narrow subject of the order, which concerns the dissolution of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee.
In 1949, when the Committee was put in place, legal aid was operated under a very different regime: it was run by the Law Society. That may seem curious now, but it was true none the less. The profession ran the legal aid scheme.
With the passage of time, better ideas emerged, and in 1988 responsibility for administering legal aid passed to the newly constituted Legal Aid Board, which is independent of Government except in the higher reaches of policy. Many of the functions of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee passed to the Legal Aid Board at that time, so it was decided to retain the advisory committee for a transitional period, to see whether that was a fruitful idea.
The Lord Chancellor has had time to reflect since 1988, and has decided that the time has come to stand down the Legal Aid Advisory Committee, possessed as he is—as am I and as is the House—of no shortage of advice on legal aid. In all my adult life, I have never received as much advice on any other subject.
I have in my pocket a list of some of the bodies that give me and the Lord Chancellor advice on legal aid. In no particular order, they include: the Law Society, the Bar Council, Action for Victims of Medical Accidents, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the British Association of Social Workers, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Consumers Association, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Housing Law Practitioners Association, Justice, the Justices' Clerks Society, the Law Centres Federation, the Lawyers Christian Fellowship, the Legal Action Group, MIND, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the National Consumer Council, Relate, Shelter, the Solicitors Family Law Association, the Trades Union Congress—and so on, and so on. Not least, Members of Parliament offer advice on legal aid. Sometimes I think that all 651 are writing to me simultaneously. I should specially mention the Select Committee on Home Affairs. We are not short of advice.
Before I ask the House to debate and ultimately, I hope, accept the proposal to dissolve the committee, I would not wish to leave the Dispatch Box without thanking all those who have served the advisory committee for the dedicated and careful work that they have done. It is greatly appreciated.

Mr. Paul Boateng: It is a funny sort of appreciation that is followed by the dissolution of the body that has rendered valuable service. It is because we believe that the service is so valuable that we oppose the


exercise of the clause in the Legal Aid Act 1988 under which the Lord Chancellor seeks to dissolve the Legal Aid Advisory Committee. We opposed the clause when it was first initiated in the House. We oppose it now because we believe that the Lord Chancellor needs and ought to receive advice within a statutory framework on the exercise of his functions in relation to the provision of legal services.
It is clear from the timing of the measure what lies behind the Lord Chancellor's concerns. Indeed, it was reflected in the little list—or the long list—that the Minister trotted out during his rather brief justification of the measure. I think that the House, albeit a House in the early part of the afternoon, deserved a little more lengthy justification for the abolition of a body that has provided good service since 1949. [Interruption.] It will not do for Conservative Members, and the silent ones in particular, to suggest that the less time that is expended in discussing this matter the better. Opposition Members fear that what the Lord Chancellor and his acolyte here in the House are saying—

Mr. John M. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman made reference to my hon. Friend the silent one—my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood). My hon. Friend was drawing a different inference, and comparing the lengths of time that solicitors took to get to the point with that which barristers took to get to the point.

Mr. Boateng: The difference might be that some return to the point again and again. The Minister does just that. The point that he returns to again and again is that he and the Lord Chancellor can be trusted and that legal aid and legal services are safe in their hands.
The point of the little list was to reassure us that there is already a profusion of bodies all too willing—indeed, one suspects from what he had to say that they are a little too willing, in the Lord Chancellor's view—to give advice on the exercise of the Lord Chancellor's functions. There is a reason for that. There is widespread discontent out there among the consumers of legal services with the functions of the Lord Chancellor and the way in which they have been carried out.
There is widespread anxiety that the Lord Chancellor increasingly is more concerned with the dictates of the Treasury than with the interests of justice. That is why so many bodies and individuals write letters to the Minister and to the Lord Chancellor and make their way to the Lord Chancellor's Department. It is because of the state of crisis in the provision of legal services in Britain.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the committee which the Government plan to withdraw has some mystical quality that none of the other committees that my hon. Friend listed has? Is it because it is statutory that the Committee has some wonderful aura of giving the best advice? Is not the advice of all those other groups good enough? Is it the Opposition's view that the committee is perfect because it is a statutory committee, or because they want more and more committees?

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman is a Member of some sophistication, and that intervention does not do him any justice. He knows very well that the importance of that committee lies in its statutory independence and the fact that it has no axe to grind.
Among the organisations on the Minister's list are some that certainly have an axe to grind. With all due respect to the Law Society, both it and the Bar Council are concerned, first and foremost, with the interests of the legal profession. The Opposition believe that the interests of justice and the provision of legal services are matters in which the consumer, and not the profession, should come first.
As a result, it is important for there to be a body, established by statute, that has the right to speak for the interests of the general public and the consumer of those services. That is why we intend to push this matter to a vote. The Lord Chancellor's actions are high-handed and contrary to the interests of justice and the consumer of legal services.
The timing of this motion is interesting, as it is within a week of a speech by the Lord Chancellor in which he outlined proposals—shortly to be canvassed in a Green Paper-that mark a dismantling of the legal aid system as we know it. With such proposals in mind—proposals instigated, first and foremost, by a desire to appease the Treasury—it is no wonder that the Lord Chancellor wishes to remove an independent committee that was established by statute to overlook his activities.
It is not the first time that the sabre has been rattled in that area, and the Government now propose not only to rattle it, but to slice off the offending limb. It was first rattled at a time when the Lord Chancellor's Department was again concerned about the dangers of an organisation that had shown that it was increasingly too independent-minded for the likes of those whose sole concern is to implement policy that has its roots elsewhere—in the interests not of justice, but of the Treasury.
The committee was an annoyance and an inconvenience to those persons within the Lord Chancellor's Department—not least, I regret to say, the Minister and the Lord Chancellor—who did not want to heed the strictures of bodies that show themselves to be robust and independent-minded and that clearly have no axe to grind.
Within weeks of the publication of the 40th report of the Lord Chancellor's Legal Aid Advisory Committee—a report that was highly critical of the cuts in eligibility for legal aid, the lack of resources applied to the research and study of such matters and of how legal services might be delivered more effectively—it was announced that the Lord Chancellor intended to abolish the committee.
Why? It is clear that there was a connection between the decision to abolish and the fact that the committee had become increasingly critical of the administration of legal aid and of the Lord Chancellor's policies towards it.
It is disingenuous for the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and seek to rationalise and justify the Government's decision to abolish the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on the ground that we should not worry, because the Legal Aid Board can be relied on to provide the Lord Chancellor with all the advice and assistance he needs. As the Minister well knows, to describe the Legal Aid Board as "independent of the Lord Chancellor" is a misnomer. It is no such thing. To all intents and purposes, it is an executive agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor's Department intends that, in due course, it should be so in its entirety.
The Minister refers to the board's independence except at the higher reaches of policy. It is precisely the higher reaches of policy, and failures in them, that we are concerned about. Increasingly, the people of this country do not trust those concerned, because cuts in eligibility are having a detrimental impact on the lives of ordinary people of modest and moderate means.
They do not trust the Lord Chancellor in terms of the higher reaches of policy, and want a sharp and critical eye applied to those policies. They want a source of searching, independent and rigorous research. They do not want another quango, executive agency or arm of Government in all but name to be given unfettered power in that area. They and we believe that it is important that there be a voice for the consumer and those most directly affected by the impact of the current cuts in legal services.
May I briefly review the work of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee? I hope that at least some Conservative Members will express an appreciation for what has already been done and give some clear undertakings and assurances on who will do that work in future. What did the 41st annual report, which was to be the last, of the Lord Chancellor's Legal Aid Advisory Committee have to contribute to the proper and effective delivery of legal services?
Let me mention just three points. Elizabeth Filkin, the chairman, said at the beginning of the report:
Our work has shown that the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Legal Aid Board still have insufficient management information on which to base sound policy development.
In that context, and in the absence of such information, the Lord Chancellor felt it right to make certain observations to the seminar of the Social Market Foundation last week. We want to examine the consequences of that insufficient management information in terms of the development of policy.
In our dialogue with the Government on this issue, we have returned time and again to the underspend of the Lord Chancellor's Department, as have those many organisations referred to in the Minister's list. Elizabeth Filkin went on to refer to that underspend. She asked why more had not been done to improve access to legal aid, advice and assistance, thus utilising that underspend. That was a reasonable, proper question, but it is a difficult one for the Government, because they have no answer. That is why they want to abolish the committee that asked it.

Mr. Michael Stephen: If the hon. Gentleman considers that such matters should properly have been drawn to the attention of the House and the public, is that not his job and that of his hon. Friends in Her Majesty's Opposition? Why does he need a quango to do his job for him?

Mr. Boateng: It never ceases to amaze me the extent to which the Government cannot abide any criticism or any examination of their policy. Perhaps it should not surprise me; perhaps I am long enough in the tooth and have had sufficient experience in the House—perhaps a little more than the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen)—to accept that behaviour. The Government always deride any such criticism or examination as being motivated by party political spite.
We can be absolutely sure of one thing: had my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and I questioned the impact of the cuts in eligibility to legal aid and the impact of the underspend on the quality of legal services, we would have been told that we were addicted to public spending and exaggerating the problems for our own party political advantage. The Government, however, cannot attack the truth that is spoken in the report of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee, because it is independent. So what do they do? They abolish it.
If the Government had their away, they would abolish all opposition. They would single a number of us out. I can see that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) is busy pointing his finger at me and my right hon. and learned Friend, or perhaps in my direction alone. That is typical of the hon. Gentleman, and I wear it as a badge of honour that I should have been singled out by the likes of him for personal abolition. I intend to survive a little longer.
It is a great pity that the advisory committee will not survive long enough to subject the Lord Chancellor's most recently vaunted proposals to the critical scrutiny and examination they deserve. The hon. Member for Shoreham, however, can be absolutely sure that the Opposition will subject them to such scrutiny. Even in the absence of the advisory committee, the mish-mash of half-baked, misconceived market solutions which the Lord Chancellor parades as policy to overcome the crisis in legal services will be revealed for what it is.
The advisory committee, an independent statutory body, referred to what it described as the
limited improvements in legal aid eligibility
which were announced by the Lord Chancellor in March of last year and implemented in April. Those improvements should not be subject to party political controversy.
Although the committee welcomed those improvements and gave them the credit they were due, it also pointed out that they fell short of a real-terms restoration of the cuts in eligibility to legal aid. The committee considered that to be a regrettable failure. The committee performed a valuable function by giving the changes their due credit, while at the same time pointing out, authoritatively and independently, their failings. All that work by the Committee is now to be put on one side.
It does not end there.

Mr. Steen: Oh dear.

Mr. Boateng: Such protests will not work. The Opposition have no intention of abrogating our responsibilities to legal aid, whatever the attitude of Conservative Members.
The hon. Member for Shoreham asked what useful function is carried out by the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee which could not be carried out by the Opposition. One such important function is to call conferences from time to time at which issues concerning the provision of legal services are considered in a non-partisan, academic, practical atmosphere.
In November of the year reported on in the advisory committee's 41st annual report, one such conference was held on reinventing legal aid. One would have thought that that project would have endeared the advisory committee to the Minister and his hon. Friends. Some of


the committee's proposals managed to achieve just that, so it is all the more surprising that it should have brought upon itself the descent of the sword of Damocles that has hung over it for so long.
One of the contributors to the committee's conference was no less a person than Professor Partington, who contributed to the report of the Social Market Foundation which found so much favour with the Minister and the Lord Chancellor. It did so because it was from that paper that the notion of capping regional budgets for legal aid arose. It is from that paper that the notion of fundholders—replicating in legal services the disastrous experience of the national health service—first sprang.
The Lord Chancellor's advisory committee performed a function that enabled a thousand flowers to bloom for legal aid and legal services, even though there were some weeds among them. It is unfortunate that the Lord Chancellor has chosen to pluck the weeds and not the flowers for his particular herbal remedy for legal services.
The committee nevertheless performed a valuable role. One does not have to agree with all its all conclusions and recommendations, but it is important that a body with a clear and independent voice and a specific statutory duty to report to the Lord Chancellor and to Parliament on measures to improve legal aid and legal services should exist.
The Opposition have been challenged by Conservative Members to take on the role of that committee. Have no fear; we shall perform a function providing just that place in which it is possible for ideas about improving services to grow, and to find succour and inspiration. We regard that as part of our role, and we shall fulfil it.
However, if Conservative Members believe that we shall do so in the non-partisan way that the Lord Chancellor's legal aid advisory committee was able to do, they have got another think coming, because we are partisan with regard to the provision of legal services.
We believe that people of moderate and modest means should have access to the law and lawyers. We believe that it is important that legal services should not be thought of simply as a matter for lawyers. We believe that there is, and should be, room for appropriate and alternative dispute resolution procedures. We believe that there should be room for properly trained and qualified mediators to provide advice and help about family law. We believe that there needs to be a new dispensation and a new impetus for a network of advice and law centres. We believe that it is important that the courts system and the legal profession be reformed, to put the interests of the consumer at the heart of their practices and procedures.
For the very reason that we believe that all those things are important, and that the consumer should come first, we oppose the abolition of the committee, and we shall continue to cry out first and foremost for the interests of the consumer and the interests of justice. We shall continue to cry out when we notice the Government motivated by a desire, first and foremost, to appease the Treasury and undermine the interests of justice that they should properly uphold.

Mr. Richard Alexander: The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has spent about 25 minutes justifying an organisation that, in my experience in my professional life—and, I suggest, possibly in his—

bore not the slightest relevance to anything that we had been doing year after year. Perhaps, when the hon. Gentleman was at the Bar, it was fundamental to the way in which he worked and the way that his clients were served. I found that that was not the case when I was active in the law. I therefore have great pleasure in supporting the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Minister that that quango be dissolved. I do not think that there will be a great loss to the community or the consumer.

Mr. Steen: Has my hon. Friend any idea what the committee costs? The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) did not mention that. I think that it is of relevance.

Mr. Alexander: I was going to discuss that subject and suggest, if I were to make any criticism of my hon. Friend the Minister's admirable short address, that the amount of money spent on the committee for many years, compared with the results that it achieved, would have been a helpful statistic to produce in persuading hon. Members, especially on the Conservative Benches, of the need for the committee.

Mr. Boateng: rose—

Mr. Alexander: I venture to suggest that, if the Opposition had been on the Government side of the House, they would have made a similar proposal at this time in Parliament, but I am happy to give way.

Mr. Boateng: The cost of the committee in the last year for which we have figures was, I believe, £;59,500. Members of the committee are unpaid. They give of their valuable time freely, and it is beneath contempt that Conservative Members should suggest that £;59,500 was not well worth spending.

Mr. John M. Taylor: It is of an altogether different order of magnitude; actually, it is £70,000.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We cannot have one intervention upon another.

Mr. Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister, and to the hon. Member for Brent, South, for clearing that matter up. Even if it is £59,000, one has to say to Members—

Mr. Gary Streeter: Seventy thousand pounds.

Mr. Alexander: I accept that, but I am taking the point made by the hon. Member for Brent, South. One has to ask, "What have we got for that committee over the years?" It is not a total of £59,000 over many years.
On such occasions, the Opposition always dress up such organisations as a voice for the consumer. Many hon. Members who are in the Chamber for the debate are, or have been, professional lawyers. I return to my original argument that there is no foundation in reality for thinking of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee as a voice for the consumer in the way that legal aid has operated for many years.
Labour will always say that those things are Treasury-driven. I return to my point—the matter is common sense-driven, and anyone considering that organisation, whether it costs £59,000 or £70,000 a year,


is obliged to ask what the justification is for the continuation of yet another quango, especially in the legal field today.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister has brought forward the statutory instrument this afternoon. It will have my support, and I should be astonished if many Labour Members who knew anything about it voted it down.

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: Labour Members have repeatedly said that the Labour party has decided that it now also wants to pursue a policy of low taxation. Is my hon. Friend therefore surprised that, although Labour Members speak about low taxation, they are willing to throw the taxpayer's money willy-nilly at unnecessary quangos?

Mr. Boateng: Wrong day, wrong debate.

Mr. Alexander: No inconsistency of the Opposition surprises me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Minister, in his admirable introduction, said that he would avoid the temptation to expound further on his introductory remarks. I should have liked to tempt him to tell us something, if he could, about what use the committee has served over the years. The hon. Member for Brent, South dragged out one or two odd things—I think that he mentioned a conference. A quango was not needed to organise a conference on the future of legal aid. If the entire body of the Opposition is to march through the Lobbies for that quango this afternoon, we need to know its purpose, how it can be justified for the continuing consumer and what it has done to justify the ears of spending.
I should have preferred that organisation, if it had any common sense, and any grounding in the way that legal aid—especially civil legal aid—has operated for years, to examine the way that legal aid committees operate in the localities. I served on such a locality committee for some years before I came to the House, and I was happy to do so.
However, if someone with a dodgy case applies for legal aid, it is not for the local committee of solicitors to turn the application down, and the marginal, dodgy case always gets through. That means that someone with a doubtful case, having been granted legal aid, is immediately given the advice of a solicitor, who obviously is entitled to instruct counsel—often senior, and expensive, counsel. Professional advisers are then appointed. The person never goes to the most reasonably priced estate agent or accountant, but instead goes right to the top of the tree.
That may be fair in one respect, but the Legal Aid Advisory Committee never considered the effect on the non-legally aided defendant, who has before him or her a barrage of legal and professional advice of the utmost expense. In those circumstances, unless he is absolutely convinced that the High Court will in no circumstances find against him, he must give in. He has to admit liability and, following from that, costs are awarded against him.
Over the years, the civil legal aid system has been geared against the non-legally aided person, whether the plaintiff or defendant. One of the fundamental flaws and one of the most unjust aspects of the legal aid system has

had no attention from the advisory committee. If it does not attend to something as fundamental as that, what does it attend to?

Mr. Stephen: To the knowledge of my hon. Friend, has the committee ever drawn attention to the scandal of foreigners coming here and litigating their civil disputes at the expense of the British taxpayer?

Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I have raised the matter on the Floor of the House with the Leader of the House, who has promised to look into it. No doubt he is currently doing so, but my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) is right—so often an applicant for legal aid who comes from abroad and whose means cannot be easily identified is given legal aid, while the country from which he come allows no such reciprocal arrangement. That is a perfect example of how flaws in the legal aid system—which we all support—are not picked up by the so-called advisory committee.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, but I wanted to intervene before he completed his admirable speech. There is now in circulation a consultative paper called "Legal Aid for the Apparently Wealthy". Chapter 5, on the subject of legal aid for those who are not citizens of the United Kingdom, addresses my hon. Friend's last point, and my hon. Friend might want to make a submission to the paper.

Mr. Alexander: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I am doubtful—my hon. Friend will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—whether the paper was drafted, or even promoted or suggested, by the committee that we are proposing to abolish. That is the sort of action that the committee should be taking, but which it has never, in all its years of existence, taken.
The advisory committee is of no relevance to our profession. I am watching the response of the hon. Member for Brent, South, and know that he agrees—

Mr. Boateng: Oh, come off it.

Mr. Alexander: The committee has no advantages for the profession or the consumer, but is just another small added cost to the taxpayer. I have pleasure in supporting the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that we abolish it today.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Conservative Members seem to think that they are discussing an action that the Lord Chancellor will take if the order is approved today. However, they are attending a long-delayed funeral, as the committee has not met for months. Its secretariat member has already been returned to the Lord Chancellor's Office and the committee has effectively been abolished by executive action. Hon. Members have come to the House to validate that action.
I can tell the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) that one of the most trenchant recommendations of the advisory committee while it was in operation was precisely concerned with the plight of people who were not legally aided. It was concerned with the dramatic increase in the number of people who would not be eligible for legal aid that would result from the change in the eligibility criteria. It gave forceful advice on the subject which, one hopes, influenced subsequent decisions of the Lord Chancellor.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the force of the committee's advice on that occasion set in train in the Lord Chancellor's Office a dislike of the committee. In January 1993 the committee said:
The committee appreciates the financial pressures to which you are subject but is concerned that the removal of substantial numbers of individuals from eligibility for legal aid and advice together with the increases in contributions will damage the access to justice which legal aid is designed to provide. We are very deeply concerned at the proposals to make savings by restricting the consumer's access to justice where alternatives are available 
That seems to be how the committee should properly exercise its responsibility. It should see whether the legal aid system provides the access to justice that it should and whether changes to the system would deny access to justice. The committee did not make itself popular by doing that.
One of the anxieties that so many of us have about the world of quangos and organisations appointed by Ministers is that their members constantly look over their shoulders, wary of the possibility that if they give forceful advice that is critical of Government policy they will not, as individuals, be re-appointed or even that the organisation of which they are members will disappear entirely. The case that we are discussing appears to give some weight to that fear. I wonder what Ministers can do to dispel the feeling that if a committee gives unwelcome advice to the Government, it may not last long.
It is surprising, on any other grounds, that the committee's abolition should take place when there is widespread debate about the future structure of legal aid. The committee has encouraged some of that debate, the Lord Chancellor has encouraged other aspects of it and various outside bodies have participated in it. I welcome the Lord Chancellor's publication of the paper on legal aid for the apparently wealthy. It is a useful document and I agree with many of its suggestions. On page after page it invites advice and comment and I see no reason why the legal aid advisory committee should not have remained in existence while that debate took place.
The Lord Chancellor specifically wants advice on whether he should proceed on a number of changes to restrict the eligibility for legal aid of people who appear to have a rich lifestyle or substantial housing assets, far beyond the reach of most ordinary people. The paper also covers the subject of foreign citizens gaining access to the legal aid system. It contains many issues on which advice is sought.
The Lord Chancellor has encouraged debate on why there are changes to the legal aid system, including issues such as cash limiting, fund holding, contracting, contingency payments and no-win, no-fee payments and their relevance to the future of legal aid. Those are all important issues and it would have been useful to have had a co-ordinated route of advice through the legal aid advisory committee. The Chancellor invites debate yet removes one of the organisations that would have had a legitimate part to play in that debate.
Legal aid is crucial to access to justice. Justice is an expensive commodity and beyond the reach of many people if they cannot get legal aid. There remains the problem of those with reasonable or significant means, but for whom legal action is out of the question because of the scale of costs involved and the amount of risk involved—for example, in defending an action against them. That is particularly true in matters of civil dispute.
In his contributions to the debate, the Lord Chancellor said that in criminal matters the accused person has the weight of the state prosecution system and all the means at the state's disposal against him or her, so is in particular need of high-quality advice. Justice is not served if the defendant is ill advised and the state is well advised. There are some cases when, despite all the money spent, the reverse seems to be true. Justice is not served if defendants are badly advised and represented. Many more problems arise for the judicial system when mistakes are made as a result of such imbalances in the system.
The legal aid system is extremely important and it is reasonable that we should have a body advising on it. It may be judged that the committee is not that useful in the longer term and can be replaced by direct channels of advice from all the relevant bodies that the Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned. But at this time, when the issue of legal aid is being so heavily debated, it seems strange to get rid of the advisory committee. It is significant that that committee should have been forcefully critical of earlier Government proposals.

Mr. Anthony Steen: An interesting phenomenon has occurred this afternoon. Labour seems to be becoming the party of the status quo. Labour Members do not like change; they are in fact extremely conservative, believing that because a body has been set up it must continue in perpetuity. The Conservative party, meanwhile, has become the radical party: we believe that we should consider the possibility of change.
That phenomenon was well illustrated by the opening speeches. The Parliamentary Secretary made an extremely short, pertinent speech, using his time to the maximum; unfortunately, the sophisticated hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) made an extraordinarily lengthy speech—the kind of speech that could well be made in the committee whose existence he wishes to continue. It was good-humoured and useful, but it did not add much. It is always nice to hear the hon. Gentleman speak, however, because we know that he will not make a very pertinent or useful contribution.
The debate is not really about a statutory committee, although the hon. Member for Brent, South rightly put me in my place when I raised that point. There is no limit to the amount of. advice available to the Parliamentary Secretary: I, for instance, have been advising him for years, although he does not always take my points. We have a Parliamentary Secretary precisely so that he can take all the advice that he needs, after which he must make the necessary decision with the Lord Chancellor. I do not begrudge him that task, which is very difficult, but I do not believe that another committee will help him much.
Oddly enough, the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which was passed in the most recent Session of Parliament and of which I was a great supporter, is intended to reduce the number of rules and regulations. I believe that the Government made one mistake, however: they should have included a clause reducing the number of committees. We have far too many of them. The House of Commons, for instance, probably has more Committees than any other organisation in the country.
Furthermore, every time a committee sits, meetings must be held, and the trouble with meetings is that they need staff. The Parliamentary Secretary is, in fact, doing


something extremely profound: he is actually trying to reduce the number of committees. The Labour party, however, immediately said, "We must have a committee; if we do not have a committee, what shall we do?" I welcome the Government's move, if for no other reason than that it will reduce the number of people who sit around tables talking when they could be doing many much more useful things.

Mr. Stephen: Did my hon. Friend observe that the Opposition rather pooh-poohed the amount of money involved, which is £69,000 or £70,000? Does that not give some idea of their attitude to public spending? Would the money not be better spent on delivering legal aid to people who need it, or even on hospitals or schools?

Mr. Steen: I do not want to be drawn into that argument. The sum involved is modest; the question is whether it is doing any good. If the Parliamentary Secretary—an enormously experienced lawyer for whom Conservative Members have the highest regard—says that it is not helping him or the Lord Chancellor, I must have regard to what he says.
There is no limit to the amount of money that the public can find, and unfortunately this amount is only a drop in the ocean. The legal aid fund currently spends some £1.5 billion a year. The sum, I believe, is less relevant than the issue, which is that too many committees and staff are involved in non-productive work. We need a new Bill, which I should be happy to promote: the Reduction in the Number of Committees Bill.
The legal aid system needs a complete overhaul. I have written to the Parliamentary Secretary a great deal on the subject. We seem to be over-concerned about the rich, but in fact there are few very rich people left; what we have are a good many people who receive legal aid and who are very poor. We should not forget that. We need a discussion paper about legal aid for the very poor, as well as about legal aid for the very rich. The very poor need legal aid, but when they receive it, it may have a counter-productive effect, in that the plaintiff must reconsider his position and decide whether he should proceed.

Mr. Deva: Rich people have access to justice because they can hire all the best lawyers, with or without legal aid, while the legal aid system also helps the very poor. It is those in between—people like us—who find it difficult to gain access to justice, because it is harder for them to obtain legal aid. Being sued, or having to sue, will mean putting their homes and their children's futures at risk. It is the middle classes—if I may use that term—whose access to justice we need to improve.

Mr. Steen: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues his speech, may I warn him against pursuing that intervention too far? We are not debating the merits of legal aid as such; we are debating the merits or otherwise of getting rid of an advisory committee.

Mr. Steen: I am always guided by your helpful rulings, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not be drawn into that argument, although I think that the House appreciated the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva).
Our debate has been slightly wider than the subject of the committee, because the committee covers a wide area of activity. I was simply saying that, as the committee itself has pointed out, there has been a great deal of distortion in the legal aid system. Once a litigant receives legal aid, the balance of justice is distorted because his decision whether to proceed has been affected. I believe that that is true of criminal as well as civil cases. Someone charged with a criminal offence should not presume that he cannot afford to defend himself; many criminals, in fact, can afford to defend themselves, and should not automatically receive legal aid.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the legal aid system is that large sums are spent on the legal costs of cases whose subject matter is relatively small? Surely we must consider raising the arbitration limits and putting much more effort into mediation. Perhaps we should examine some of the Med/Arb schemes that are so popular in America.

Mr. Steen: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I see another temptation for the hon. Gentleman. We must not go down that road. This is not a general debate on legal aid; it must relate to the advisability or otherwise of washing the committee out of existence.

Mr. Steen: I hear what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker. I merely wish to point out—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to "hear what I say"; I want him to follow my instructions.

Mr. Steen: The criticism that you are making, Madam Deputy Speaker, is not—I am glad to say—of my speech, but of the interventions. You are presuming that I shall respond to them in a way that you will not like, but I assure you that that is not so.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Let me be blunt. The hon. Gentleman was already going down that path, and I was trying to be kind to him, which was clearly a mistake. I shall be blunter next time.

Mr. Steen: I do not wish to incur your wrath, Madam Deputy Speaker, but merely earn your good humour. I was simply going to say something that I now will not say. What I will say is that the committee should have taken into account the effect of legal aid on civil cases. It should have recognised that, because so many civil cases now involved legal aid, the administration of the courts was being blocked. So much legally aided litigation is passing through the courts that the administration of justice, especially in county courts, is not as efficient and effective as it should be. That is something that the committee, mistakenly, did not consider. It should have put it right, but, of course, it cannot now do so as it is being wound up.
The House will be amazed to learn that 3.5 million people, or one seventh of the entire working population, received legal aid in this financial year. As has been mentioned, the cost is £1.6 billion, which is approaching the total sum collected in excise duties on the nation's alcohol.
I remind the Minister that the legal aid system is nearly out of control—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. So is the hon. Gentleman. I remind him for the last time that he must stick to the point at issue. This is not a general debate on legal aid. If he strays, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Steen: Labour's Front-Bench spokesman spoke for 25 minutes about the legal aid system. I feel—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) may have done as the hon. Gentleman says but he did so in relation to the existence or otherwise of the advisory committee. That is the distinction, and I would expect those who are legally trained to understand that distinction.

Mr. Steen: Of course I understand the distinction. I am talking about the legal aid system in relation to the committee's report. I do not feel that I should have to preface every remark with a comment about the report. Labour's Front-Bench spokesman did not mention it more than once or twice so I feel that it is perhaps slightly unfair to penalise a Tory Back Bencher when the Labour Front Bencher was allowed to range widely over various subjects.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Brent, South may have ranged widely but his remarks related to the advisability or otherwise of the dissolution of the committee. That is my sole concern and that is the point that I am trying to make to the hon. Gentleman, although it seems hard to get through to him.

Mr. Steen: You got through to me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I think that it is probably a slightly unfair comment. In any event, I shall now continue referring to the report.
I practised as a barrister. I know many solicitors and barristers who survive thanks to legal aid funds and the help of the committee. I welcome the reduction in bureaucracy that will flow from the demise of the committee but it seems to be a drop in the ocean and might perhaps be gloriously irrelevant.
We should be appalled by the amount of money spent overall on the legal aid fund and the committee but, instead, we seem to have had little regard for the enormous sums spent merely to distort the marketplace, which is what the legal aid fund and the committee have been doing. They distort the way in which people litigate.
Only last night we debated the distortion of the fishing market by the intervention of the Spanish fleet. In the same way, the committee and the legal aid fund have distorted the marketplace and any balance in matters of justice. My party is the party of the market force but I am convinced that the committee and its recommendations tended to distort. We shall correct that distortion by getting rid of the committee today.
In many ways, the whole debate is mistaken. It is a supreme irony that the winding up of a committee should take time on the Floor of the House. Furthermore, we usually proceed by using statutory instruments, of which there were more than 2,000 last year. Why could we not

wind up this committee in the same way? Why do we need a debate lasting one and a half hours, with me talking for far too long?

Mr. John M. Taylor: The Opposition asked for it.

Mr. Steen: The Minister tells me that the only reason why we are holding this debate is that the Labour party asked for it but it would be much simpler to dissolve the committee without bringing the issue to the Floor of the House. That gives me an idea for another good Bill that I could introduce, one on ways to dissolve committees without bringing the matter to the Floor of the House.
I hope that you feel that in my closing remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker, I followed your strictures and that my colleagues and Opposition Members will listen carefully to what you told me.

Mr. John Fraser: I appreciate the fact that we must relate our comments to the advisory committee and I begin by quarrelling with part of the analysis of the reasons for abolishing the committee.
The Legal Aid Board is, of course, responsible for the administration of the legal aid system. It works fairly well and innovatively and accepts a wide range of representations. In a sense, the Legal Aid Board's administrative functions can replace those of the advisory committee but the House needs to be absolutely clear about the fact that many of the parameters that determine the way in which legal aid works are decided not by the Legal Aid Board but by the Lord Chancellor and his Treasury-driven ambition to cash limit the amount spent on legal aid. It is on the matters over which he has some control that I would argue that he should not be a judge, sitting on his own. We do not allow him to be a judge, sitting on his own, on the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords and we should not allow him to be a judge sitting on his own of other matters for which he determines the scope of legal aid.
Let me cite some examples. If an old lady in my constituency trips over a pavement and qualifies for only £999 in damages instead of £1,000, it is the Lord Chancellor who decides that she shall not receive legal aid. A statutory committee is required to advise the Lord Chancellor on such an issue. The committee should also publish its report, which is bound to be authoritative, for use by outside bodies and Members of Parliament.
The Lord Chancellor decides the eligibility for legal aid by, for example, excluding anyone from legal advice whose income is above the income support limit. That involves the exclusion of millions of people which is a crucial matter on which he should have advice from a committee because of the widespread effect on the rights of ordinary citizens. Those rights have been encouraged by the citizens charter but their exercise is discouraged by the absence of any assistance.
The Lord Chancellor also decides the rates of payment and remuneration for legal aid practitioners.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Quite right, too.

Mr. Fraser: Of course, the Lord Chancellor sets them at between half and one third of commercial rates. The Minister may be in favour of that, too, but if the rates are driven down to such an extent two legal professions will


be created, which will be to the disadvantage of those who want to exercise their legal rights. That is another example of where the Lord Chancellor should at least take advice.
One way to reduce the cost of legal aid, which I know is on the Minister's mind, would be to change the procedures or to use different ones such as mediation and conciliation. A great deal of money is spent on legal aid for tenants suing their landlords for damages in the county court, which is a lengthy procedure. It would be much cheaper and simpler if there were legal aid for proceedings in magistrates courts under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Such matters are determined by the Lord Chancellor—

Mr. Stephen: rose—

Mr. Fraser: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall not give way because time is short.
There are two final issues on which it is extraordinarily important that the Lord Chancellor receives advice. The first involves legal aid for criminal proceedings. I am referring to criminal proceedings in the Crown court, in which, incidentally, the Legal Aid Board has no involvement and over which the Lord Chancellor has very little control because the rates of payment are determined by the courts and the grant of certificate is determined by the Crown court. Criminal legal aid covering magistrates courts, attendance as a duty solicitor at a magistrates court and attendance at police stations—the figure excludes Crown courts—covers 30 per cent. of all expenditure.
I believe that the amount in the Crown courts is considerably higher. The matter on which the Lord Chancellor should take advice is the proposition that the cash limiting of civil legal aid should be completely decoupled from the amount spent on criminal legal aid.
Crime has doubled since 1979 and the growth in crime has increased the expenditure on criminal legal aid. If we have cash limits, we limit legal aid for someone who wants civil legal aid. I give an example of how that could happen. Let us suppose that a woman has been assaulted by a burglar who has committed many offences and who gets legal aid. Apart from finding that the amount she gets from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is reduced, the woman could find herself unable to get legal aid for an accident that she suffers because she is uncertain and unsteady as a result of the burglary because so much more money has to be spent on the burglar's defence.
It is extraordinary that we take money away from the victims of crime and then spend it on defending people most of whom, in the magistrates court, turn out to be guilty of the crime. The committee should be asked its view about whether legal aid should be totally decoupled in terms of criminal legal aid and civil legal aid.
The other matter on which the committee's advice should be sought is the extent to which the Government should be responsible for paying for the consequences of their own changes in procedure. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the attendance of lawyers at police stations and the attendance of lawyers at

magistrates courts pushed up the legal aid budget, as it was bound to do. The Government are now trying to cash limit the civil side because—

Mr. Stephen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is this not a thinly disguised canter around the whole course of legal aid? Should not the hon. Gentleman be brought to order?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can safely leave it to me. I have been following the arguments closely. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) is giving various examples of why he feels that the committee should remain in existence. It was equally open to Conservative Members or to any other hon. Member to employ the same tactics, if one wants to put it that way, in exactly the same way. The fact that other hon. Members did not do so is not my fault.

Mr. Fraser: I was saying that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act has pushed up the cost. There is a new issue on which the Lord Chancellor should ask the advisory committee to advise. Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the right of silence will be abolished at the beginning of April. There will be a requirement on somebody charged with a criminal offence to give an explanation of his behaviour or the circumstances under which he was apprehended. Under the Act, if he fails to do that when he has been cautioned by a police officer, that can be evidence against him at his trial.
The consequence is that it is even more important that everybody being interviewed at a police station is represented by a lawyer. It will no longer be enough for a lawyer, when phoned up, to say, "You need not say anything. I will see you the next day." That is an issue—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is an issue that seems to be going rather far away from the hon. Gentleman's original proposition. I advise him to align his remarks on this example more closely to the order.

Mr. Fraser: You have a habit, Madam Deputy Speaker, of sometimes taking the words straight out of my mouth. I was about to finish the sentence by saying that that is the sort of issue on which the advice of the advisory committee should be taken because it will have a crucial effect on legal aid. It would be scandalous if the removal of the right of silence led not only to injustices in the criminal courts, but to people with civil matters to press being deprived of assistance.
The committee's advice and the Government's policy should be to ensure that when we grant people civil and legal rights, they are capable of enforcement. The Government's proposal is a weakening of that position.

Mr. John M. Taylor: By leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate. I should like the House to imagine for a moment that instead of coming here to dissolve the committee, I have come to create a new advisory committee. My hon. Friends may deny it, but they would be looking sullen. They would not be happy and they would probably go to the Tea Room instead of sitting here. The Opposition would be shrieking and accusing me of stacking the committee with Tory placemen—[Interruption.] They would. That is exactly what would happen.
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) spoke for longer than I did, although he spoke in a good-humoured way. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) in many ways made the points that I should like to have made. I know that I am not allowed to quote from Hansard for another place. I point out, however, that there is quite a good synopsis on the utility of the committee at column 693 of the Official Report, House of Lords of 30 November. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor refers to his own conclusion about the committee, which was transitionally retained after the Legal Aid Act 1988. My right hon. Friend had a look at it, gave it a fair trial and decided that it was time for it to go.
I assure the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that the Lord Chancellor's Department is far from being short of unwelcome advice; it is part of our daily bread. The right hon. Gentleman reviewed the agenda fairly and comprehensively.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) spoke for all of us who like to think that we are radicals and deregulators. He is right to say that he advises me often enough. I wonder whether he is attracted, as I am, by the practice of the United States Congress. The Americans have what is called the "sundown" clause. In any instrument setting up a committee, there is a final clause that says when the committee will expire; all committees have their own expiry built into them. That would stop us returning to all the statutory instruments. Does that idea commend itself to my hon. Friend?

Mr. Steen: Is my hon. Friend suggesting built-in obsolescence? When one sets up a committee, would it cease immediately at its expiry date unless there was an affirmative proposal for it to continue? Is that what my hon. Friend has in mind?

Mr. Taylor: That is exactly what I have in mind. Does my hon. Friend approve?

Mr. Steen: Very much.

Mr. Taylor: Good.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) reminded us in an intervention of the original sin of any benefits system. The rich do not need it and the poor qualify, but there is a group in the middle. We all know that from representing our constituents.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), whose views in these matters I have always respected, chased a Treasury phantom a couple of times round the Chamber. Nothing he said in that sense was compatible with the rate of growth of legal aid expenditure, which is little short of exponential. I am, however, sympathetic to other methods of dispute resolution and I join him in that. I am also sympathetic to any effort to separate conceptually criminal legal aid from civil legal aid because they are not the same thing, as he and I know.
I hope that I have done justice to the comments of right hon. and hon. Members in this debate. I have tried to address the points at issue. I am confident that I am right in recommending that the House agrees to the order.

Mr. Boateng: The confidence—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask leave of the House.

Mr. Boateng: By leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. The confidence that the Minister has in his own judgment is not shared by the Opposition. We are gravely disappointed by his failure to take on board the points that we have sought to make or, indeed, to be fair, some of the points made by his hon. Friends, however recent their arrival in the Chamber this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) did not grace us with his presence at the outset of the debate, but he did not feel constrained from making a highly mischievous intervention, which was entirely in character. We heard from him and from the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) the true voice of the Conservative party on these issues. We saw the true faces and neither of them was particularly pretty.
The comments by the hon. Members for South Hams and for Brentford and Isleworth were in stark contrast to the mellifluous tones, albeit somewhat excitable towards the end, of the Minister. They suggested that somehow publicly-funded legal services and legal aid were a distortion of the market. That was the most incredible statement because it clearly revealed the belief that not only poor people, but people of moderate and modest means, about whom the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth purported to be concerned, should not be able to look to central funds and should not be able to look to a committee such as the legal aid advisory committee to advise the Lord Chancellor to ensure that the legal aid system holds the ring for justice in the adversarial process envisaged in our legal procedures.
The Minister said that the Lord Chancellor had given the committee a fair trial and had decided to dispense with it. When did that trial take place? Who was the counsel for the prosecution and who for the defence? We know who the solicitor for the prosecution was—no lesser person than the Minister himself, who clearly has it in for the committee. One can understand why—because the committee is tackling issues which are embarrassing to Conservative Members.
The committee is tackling the issue of the failure of the market system, albeit it ameliorated in its more extreme forms by the existence of a legal aid system, to provide quality access to justice for all our people and to give people of modest and moderate means, be they—I shall use the class terms now adopted by Conservatives Members, especially by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth—members of the middle class or the: working class, access to justice. At the moment, all too many ordinary working people and people of modest and moderate means are denied that access. It is right that we should look to a Lord Chancellor's advisory committee.
Conservatives Members—one hon. Member in particular—asked what the committee does that is so worth while and worth preserving. The committee, after all, talks of waste. Is that not important? Is it not important to highlight waste in the legal aid system? Is it not rather important to commission research into how solicitors deliver a service? That was precisely why the committee commissioned Wolfson college, so that the management information, so balefully lacking in the Lord


Chancellor's Department, was provided and so that action to curb waste was taken and taken effectively. Is there a Conservative Member who will rise from his seat to oppose that? Not a sound.
If the committee is not doing that—

Mr. Stephen: rose—

Mr. Deva: rose—

Mr. Boateng: I may have been tempting fate. Indeed, I was tempting fate, but I shall proceed.

Mr. Stephen: rose—

Mr. Deva: rose—

Mr. Boateng: Well, I shall let one voice be heard.

Mr. Deva: If the committee is so marvellous, as the hon. Gentleman claims, why, in another breath, does he say that nothing works properly in the legal aid system?

Mr. Boateng: Because the Lord Chancellor will not listen to the committee; because the Lord Chancellor time and again turns a deaf ear and a blind eye to the manifest inadequacies of the system; because the Lord Chancellor time and again seeks to impose an ideologically driven, market-led, Treasury-inspired package of solutions to the crises that exist in access to justice and delivery of legal services.
We shall push this matter to a Division. We believe that the committee ought to have been kept in existence. We believe, indeed, that its powers and its resources ought to have been strengthened to make it a more efficient watchdog of the public purse and to enable it more effectively to protect and to preserve the interests of the consumer from the deprivations of the Treasury-inspired solutions that have brought us to the crisis which besets the courts and the legal aid system.
We will oppose the motion and we shall continue to oppose the Lord Chancellor as he seeks to undermine the legal aid system and as he seeks to deny people of modest and moderate means the access to justice that is their due.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 150.

Division No. 42]
[5.44 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Alexander, Richard
Burns, Simon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Burt, Alistair


Arbuthnot, James
Butcher, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butler, Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carrington, Matthew


Bellingham, Henry
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bendall, Vivian
Chapman, Sydney



Beresford, Sir Paul
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Body, Sir Richard
Coe, Sebastian


Booth, Hartley
Congdon, David


Boswell, Tim
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bowis, John
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Brandreth, Gyles
Couchman, James


Brazier, Julian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Delvin, Tim





Dover, Den
Madel, Sir David


Duncan, Alan
Maitland, Lady Olga


Duncan Smith, Iain
Malone, Gerald


Dunn, Bob
Mans, Keith



Durant Sir Anthony
Marlow, Tony


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Merchant, Piers


Evennett, David
Mills, Iain


Fabricant, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fishburn, Dudley
Moss, Malcolm


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Nelson, Anthony


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Newton, Fit Hon Tony


Fry, Sir Peter
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gale, Roger
Norris, Steve


Gallie, Phil
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Gardiner, Sir George
Porter, David (Waveney)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Powell, William (Corby)


Gillan, Cheryl
Richards, Rod


Gorst, Sir John
Riddick, Graham


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hague, William
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Sackville, Tom


Hannam, Sir John
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Haselhurst, Alan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hawkins, Nick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hawksley, Warren
Spencer, Sir Derek


Heald, Oliver
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Hendry, Charles
Sproat, Iain


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Steen, Anthony


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Stephen, Michael


Horam, John
Streeter, Gary


Hordern Rt Hon Sir Peter
Sykes, John



Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Thomason, Roy


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Jack, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Trend, Michael


Jessel, Toby
Twinn, Dr Ian


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Viggers, Peter


Kilfedder, Sir James
Walden, George


King, Rt Hon Tom
Waller, Gary


Knapman, Roger
Watts, John


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Wells, Bowen


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Whittingdale, John


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Willetts, David


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Wilshire, David


Legg, Barry
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Leigh, Edward
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Wolfson, Mark


Lidington, David
Wood, Timothy


Lightbown, David
Yeo, Tim


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter



Luff, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


MacKay, Andrew
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Michael Bates.


McLoughlin, Patrick





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Betts, Clive


Alton, David
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Anderson, Donald(Swansea E)
Boateng, Paul


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Keith


Barnes, Harry
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Battle, John
Burden, Richard


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Byers, Stephen


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Caborn, Richard


Benton, Joe
Callaghan, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)






Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
McMaster, Gordon


Campbell-Savours, D N
Maddock, Diana


Canavan, Dennis
Mahon, Alice


Cann, Jamie
Mandelson, Peter


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Martlew, Eric


Chisholm, Malcolm
Meale, Alan


Church, Judith
Michael, Alun



Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Clelland, David
Milburn, Alan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Miller, Andrew


Cohen, Harry
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Connarty, Michael
Morley, Elliot


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Corbett, Robin
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mowlam, Marjorie


Cox, Tom
Mullin, Chris


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Dixon, Don
O'Hara, Edward


Dobson, Frank
O'Neill, Martin


Dowd, Jim
Patchett, Terry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Pearson, Ian


Eagle, Ms Angela
Pickthall, Colin


Eastham, Ken
Pike, Peter L


Etherington, Bill
Pope, Greg


Fatchett, Derek
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Flynn, Paul
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Prescott Rt Hon John


Foster, Don (Bath)
Purchase, Ken


Foulkes, George
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fraser, John
Raynsford, Nick


George, Bruce
Rendel, David


Gerrard, Neil
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rooker, Jeff


Graham, Thomas
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Ruddock, Joan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Salmond, Alex


Grocott, Bruce
Short Clare


Gunnel, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hall, Mike
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Harvey, Nick
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Heppell, John
Soley, Clive


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Spearing, Nigel


Hoey, Kate
Spellar, John


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Steinberg, Gerry


Hoyle, Doug
Stevenson, George


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Ingram, Adam
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Timms, Stephen


Jamieson, David
Tyler, Paul


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Vaz, Keith


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Wallace, James


Keen, Alan
Wareing, Robert N


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Welsh, Andrew


Khabra, Piara S
Wicks, Malcolm


kilfoyle, Peter
Wilson, Brian


Lewis, Terry
Worthington, Tony


Livingstone, Ken
Wright Dr Tony


Llwyd, Elfyn



McAvoy, Thomas
Tellers for the Noes:


Macdonald, Calum
Estelle Morris and Tessa Jowell.


Mackinlay, Andrew

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Legal Aid Advisory Committee (Dissolution) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.

Agriculture

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): I beg to move,
That the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 3002), dated 25th November 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to consider motion No. 3 in the name of the Leader of the Opposition:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Farm and Conservation Grant (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 3003), dated 25th November 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th November, be annulled.

Mr. Jack: This debate deals with developments affecting the farm and conservation grant scheme. The House may recall that, on 29 November last year, my right hon. Friend the Minister announced the outcome of the 1994 public expenditure round as it affected agriculture, saying:
Against the background of an extremely demanding public expenditure round I am delighted that resources have been found to support farming enterprises in the six Objective 5(b) areas in England".
Although he found some extra resources for this task, savings had to be found from capital grants to fund our new programme. It is on those capital grants that the debate will concentrate.
These two short instruments, the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1994 and the Farm and Conservation Grant (Amendment) Regulations 1994, came into effect on 30 November last year. They end the availability of grants to farmers for waste handling measures. However, let me reassure the House that where a commitment to provide waste facilities before 30 November 1994 can be shown, or where a farmer has a current improvement plan which includes such facilities, claims will still be accepted.
The grant scheme which we are ending has exceeded our original expectations. When the scheme was introduced in 1989, the then Minister announced a provision of up to £50 million over three years for waste handling facilities in recognition of the need to tackle the problem of farm waste pollution. In fact, since the scheme's inception, more than £150 million has been paid in grants to farmers in the United Kingdom for the installation or improvement of waste handling facilities, valued in total at about £300 million.
In England and Wales, 11,500 farmers have benefited. The scheme's effectiveness is mirrored by the fact that, in 1988, the year before the scheme was introduced, there were 940 serious agricultural pollution incidents. In 1993, only 63 major incidents were reported. However, we acknowledge that particular difficulties may be experienced by farmers in areas that will be designated as nitrate-vulnerable zones, and I can confirm that it is our intention to provide assistance to farmers in those areas for waste handling measures.
We want to help farmers to maintain high standards of pollution control. To that end, free pollution advice and help in the preparation of farm waste management plans will continue to be available. That will be backed up by the codes of practice for the protection of soil, water and


air, which give sound advice and guidance on how to avoid pollution. Moreover, we are continuing to invest around £2 million a year in research programmes designed to help farmers to manage farm wastes.
The farm and conservation grant scheme also provides help with the provision, replacement and improvement of hedges, traditional walls and banks, and the repair or reinstatement of traditional buildings. That help will continue, with about £8 million of grants in England, Scotland and Wales until February 1996, when the scheme will expire, and we will consider how best to continue that work in the light of the transfer of the Countryside Commission's stewardship arrangements to our Ministry. I commend the measures to the House.

Mr. Elliot Morley: The measures, as the Minister said, end grants for facilities for handling the storage and treatment of agricultural effluent and waste and related fixed disposal schemes. The grant scheme has been useful. As the Minister outlined, agricultural pollution has been a major source of river pollution. When I looked at the figures recently, I was surprised by the high proportion of pollution incidents that have been attributed to agricultural run-off, particularly in the south-west, where there are many dairy farms.
There is no doubt that organisations such as the National Farmers Union have done much to support farmers in developing, for example, management advice on controlling pollution from slurry and from the animal livestock industry. The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service has also played a valuable role. It is a great shame that ADAS is to be privatised, because it has provided great support for the agricultural sector over the years. Many farmers would find it difficult to buy such expertise and support. In terms of the support which the agricultural sector receives, farmers should expect research and development advice from bodies such as ADAS. I fear that in future such advice will be denied to many farmers.
The grants were reduced from 50 per cent. in 1989, when the scheme was introduced, to 25 per cent. in 1993. That was obviously a clear signal that they would be phased out. I have no doubt that they are being phased out as part of the Ministry's obligation to the Treasury, as the Minister said, so that the Treasury can accumulate money and can bribe the electorate with their own money and offer tax cuts at the next general election.
There has been excellent uptake of the scheme. The figures show that £64,000 was granted in 1989, rising to £23.4 million at its peak, and declining slightly to £21.1 million in 1992–93. The scheme's success can be seen in the decline in the overall number of pollution incidents. The overall pollution figures show that there were 4,441 incidents in 1988, declining to 2,883 in 1993. The involvement of dairy and beef farmers in those pollution incidents was about a third—35 per cent. in 1988 and 32 per cent. in 1993.
The National Rivers Authority concludes that the issues at which the grants are aimed—the containment of slurry and silage liquors, which are very powerful pollutants, and the failure of storage areas—are the main causes of agricultural pollution incidents. I am sure that the Minister will agree that we need high-quality aquatic habitats and

that such habitats are threatened. Many of the cleanest rivers are under great pressure from all kinds of pollution, not just agricultural pollution. Indeed, they are also under pressure from water abstraction. Chalk rivers are also under pressure.
Pressure on the unspoilt and cleanest water environments has been demonstrated by the decline of the otter. I am glad that the otter is making a comeback in certain parts of the country. That is a tribute to reintroduction programmes, conservation bodies and better pollution control. We have seen the decline of the dipper, which is linked to the greater acidity of water, and the decline of trout in certain streams. Those declines are important also as bio-indicators of the health of our country and of our aquatic environment. The scheme has been effective in reducing that problem when subsidies are rightly under scrutiny in the agricultural sector and the common agricultural policy is under review, not least by today's Euro-rebels' manifesto.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What does it say?

Mr. Morley: The Euro-rebels' manifesto stressed the need to reform agriculture and fishing. They called for the return of control to individual countries in respect of agriculture and fishing. I do not know whether the Euro-rebels' condition will be that the manifesto must be accepted by the Government before they allow themselves to be readmitted. We await developments with interest.
The savings from the scheme are quite modest, as the Minister will concede. The NFU calculates that ending the scheme will bring about a saving of about £8 million in 1995–96. That is a very small sum, taking into account the global sum of agricultural support. I am sure that it did not pass your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that last night's threat of rebellion over the recent fishing deal produced an extra £28 million in grants because 27 Tory Members showed their dissent. On my calculation, that worked out to a little more than £1 million per dodgy vote.
This is not one of the best-attended debates; I am sure that it makes up for that in quality, if not in quantity. If the five Conservative Members present would care to show their rebellion tonight, there could be a useful £5 million to go back into the scheme. It would take only another £3 million and we would be able to make up the £8 million that the scheme is meant to save. Conservative Back-Bench Members might consider the way in which Government finance seems to work. There are certainly better odds than in the national lottery.
It is a sad fact that environmental grants for those and other environmental measures are still a very small part of the overall agricultural budget. Opposition Members have warmly supported schemes such as the environmentally sensitive areas scheme; it brings quick benefits to farmers and it benefits countryside management. However, there is still a need for the effective monitoring of those schemes. That is not an issue that we may talk about tonight, but I am sure that the Government accept that there is a need to evaluate whether public money is spent effectively and whether it achieves the objects for which it was designed.
The agri-environment programme is also very disappointing in terms of the overall proportion of money that is allocated to it. In fact, the agri-environment programme accounts for about 1 per cent. of current spending on agricultural support. The public would see


much more rationale behind grants directed towards environmental gain than they would in special beef premiums and other schemes linked to production subsidy. Support for environmental control—that is what the grant was designed for—would command popular support.
I cannot deny that profits in the dairy sector have improved recently and are fairly good at the moment, but farmers with existing quota are the ones who gain, while dairy farmers who want to buy or lease more quota to expand, because of agreements or developments that they may have—especially new entrants into the dairy industry who have to buy or lease quota—face heavy financial burdens. The grants were helpful in that respect. I hope that the Minister realises that some farmers will find it hard to raise the money to provide the facilities.
I do not want to take too much of the time of the House on narrow points connected with the regulations, but I should be grateful if the Minister would deal with two aspects in his reply. I understand that MAFF and the Department of the Environment are reviewing all environmental land management schemes. They want a more coherent approach to the implementation and development of schemes within the proper framework of a conservation strategy. We do not disagree with that. We certainly think that a land management and land use approach is sensible, and it is good to design schemes to meet the Government's international biodiversity commitments and the European Union habitat directive, which also places an obligation on them.
The Government's Environment Bill will be considered by the House shortly; that, too, has elements connected with the strategy, in that it deals with hedgerow conservation and conservation grants in general. What role does the Minister expect the forthcoming environmental protection agency to play in connection with conservation grants and with directing resources to conservation programmes in the agricultural sector, as part of an overall land use and countryside management scheme?
I note that the Minister said that some form of grant would be available for farmers in designated nitrate-vulnerable zones. Can he outline any details of how those schemes will work? Apparently, there is good reason for farmers in such zones to receive grants for waste storage. That is fair enough. We do not disagree with it; but if there is good reason for that, where is the reason for taking the grant away from other farmers? Preventing pollution is important not only in nitrate-vulnerable zones but in every region.
There is no doubt that when such incentives are lost, some farmers will be less able to invest in efficient and environmentally sensitive pollution control facilities, so there is still a potential agricultural pollution problem. The scheme has been successful, and I urge the Government to include something like it in any future overall land management scheme rather than to scrap it completely, as is proposed.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you for letting me catch your eye this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to say a few words because the Minister's contribution was so brief. I had hoped to intervene in his speech, but having failed to do so I am now forced to make a speech of my own.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the success of the scheme. There is no doubt that for a comparatively small sum—about £150 million—it has radically reduced the number of pollution incidents, and that is a creditable success. As a result, the worst cases have already been grant-aided and pollution prevention facilities have been installed; but there are still farmers at the margins, whose profitability is not great, who have not yet managed to install facilities.
Some farmers in my constituency are not covered by the nitrate-vulnerable zone category but may be covered by others, such as environmentally sensitive areas or nitrate-vulnerable areas. I urge the Minister to consider whether farmers in areas presently zoned—they are already in a fairly special area, otherwise they would not be covered—could have their grants continued as if they were in nitrate-vulnerable zones. I ask him to think seriously about that idea, so that farmers on the margins, with low profitability, are covered. They are often using stock farming systems, with no other farming methods that they could use, so, for the sake of the environment, it would be worth while to include them.

Mr. Paul Tyler: In the last words of his speech, the hon. Member for Cirencester arid Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) emphasised the importance of the schemes. They exist not to support farm incomes or to help farmers to be more productive but lo help the environment. It has been something of a misnomer that, in the past, they have been treated as farm schemes. It is right that they are administered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and by the equivalent bodies for Wales and Scotland, but we should really regard them as part of the armoury for protecting the environment, not as part of the farm grant system—I see the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury nodding.
The irony is that cuts are being made precisely at the time when we are told on every other front that farming policy should be turned towards a wider rural policy, with more effective support for conservation and environmental protection. We are asked to take a step backwards when everyone else is saying that we should take a step forwards.
While congratulating the Minister on the success of the scheme, I must tell him that this is the last moment when he should accept Treasury cuts. We all know why cuts are being made. The reason has nothing to do with a change of attitude within MAFF—or, if it is, MAFF must be deaf and blind. It has to do with the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has mighty little that he can get his hands on in MAFF's budget; the huge sums that pass through the Ministry are largely determined by our participation in the European Union common agricultural policy, so they are saved from the Chancellor's axe and left almost intact. The millions of pounds currently going into the area aid and the set-aside schemes remain beyond the scope of the House, of the Ministry and even of the Chancellor, yet what is, by comparison, the tiny sum available for the conservation grant scheme is up for grabs; in the usual polite terms that the Minister uses to describe such events, he says that the scheme will have "expired" by this time next year.
We must ensure that, even if the Minister pursues that policy now, he must also introduce alternatives to take the place of the scheme. As other hon. Members have said, its main purpose was to ensure that the handling, storage and treatment of farm waste were effectively tackled. That does nothing for the productivity of the dairy farmer or the beef farmer; indeed, having installed facilities, farmers may find that the running costs make their holdings less productive. The scheme is designed to protect the wider community and the environment. It is not a farm support scheme.
The money made available for those who claim for the maintenance of hedgerows and stone walls can have the same effect. Once a farmer has taken up the scheme, he will have to maintain his hedgerows and walls again and again. Without financial support, that will be a continuing drain on his productivity. In my travels around the country in the past few years, I have seen dry stone walls in the Pennines that stop suddenly because at a certain point the grant support was reduced. That does not help the farmer; even worse, it is of real damage to the managed landscape which so many people want to protect, conserve and enhance.
I ask the Minister to explain what will be in place for farmers who do not happen to fall within the ESAs—I ask not for their sake but for the sake of future generations and the landscape. What will be in place to ensure that the useful initiatives taken under the hedgerow incentive scheme are extended to all field boundaries, including Cornish banks? Owing to an absurdity of bureaucratic bungling, Cornish banks—they do not happen to have massive growth on top, but they are otherwise identical to hedges in other parts of the country; they just happen to be our local variation—have been excluded from the hedgerow incentive scheme.
It is true that two thirds of pollution incidents have originated from beef or dairy farms. If, in future, they do not happen to be sited in nitrate-vulnerable zones, they will not be eligible for any sort of assistance. Who suffers from that? It is not so much the farmers, although they may be put to considerable expenditure, as the wider community and the environment.
Of course, those who had ready money in the years between 1989 and 1993, when they could obtain 50 per cent. grants toward expenditure on waste water schemes, were, on the whole, the more profitable farmers. Similarly, those who were able to take advantage of the scheme when support was reduced to 25 per cent. were still people with ready money. The people who are now left—the National Rivers Authority is desperately worried about them—are those with no financial resources with which to support this sort of expensive project. Some hon. Members may not be aware that the sums involved run into thousands of pounds, often on the holdings least able to stand that sort of expenditure—even less so without financial support of any kind.
The estimated savings amount to £8 million a year. I believe that the tax-paying public would cheerfully contribute £8 million to that purpose if they knew that the money was coming from the area assistance programme or from set-aside. Tonight, we should be weighing up the costs to the environment, not the costs to the farming community. That is why the Minister must take seriously the various questions put to us, and no doubt to him, by

organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Council for the Protection of Rural England—not because they support the farming industry but because they are concerned about the impact on the environment.
I hope, too, that the Minister will give us—we cannot obtain it direct—the advantage of the advice that he has received from the NRA. All my contact with the authority, at the sharp end and on the farm, persuades me that it is desperately worried about the impact of these cuts.
It is surely symbolic of the attitude of the Government and of this Ministry that these cuts are made now. Support for agriculture is taking a wrong turning. It is "Alice in Wonderland" thinking to encourage set-aside at the same time as discouraging both the prevention of pollution and the enhancement of traditional features such as field boundaries.
It is also damaging and dangerous to suppose that, in future, policies such as these should be applied only to designated areas. As the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said, there will always be marginal cases. If only areas designated as special, or as ESAs, or as nitrate-vulnerable zones, are the ones that get the support, there will always be a large number of hard cases that fall outside such categories. The public at large will feel, moreover, that pollution can have just as bad an effect on, say, the aquatic life cycle in other areas.
In the south-west, dairy farmers have had a great deal of trouble in recent months due to extensive flooding—flash floods, storms and rain. The rain of the past 24 hours has greatly increased the risks associated with overflows of slurry. There have been damaging incidents for which no particular blame should attach to the farmers concerned, but they clearly need the attention of the NRA.
If we are to have effective conservation and landscape management, and if we are also to ensure the sort of pollution prevention measures required of us by the EU, we cannot proceed on a designated area basis. There has to be a national policy. We cannot meet the requirements of the European directives, or of our home audience, if these grants are applied only to specific geographical areas. That is over-restrictive and could be extremely damaging.
I believe that this is a very sad step. Had the Minister been frank with the House, he would have admitted that he did not want to take it, but that he had the Treasury just down the road looking over his shoulder. He can redeem himself this evening, however, if he tells us what he hopes will be in place by this time next year, when the last residues of this valuable scheme are swept away by these measures. I hope that the Minister will be forward looking and will make positive suggestions to put in place national policies. It will not be sufficient to say that only limited, designated areas will require this sort of attention in future.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I had not intended to speak in the debate until I received, earlier today, a book written by Gordon Conway, former professor of environmental technology at Imperial College of Science and Technology in London, and by Jules M. Pretty, director of the sustainable agricultural programme at the International Institute for Environment and Development, also in London. The book, entitled


"Unwelcome Harvest: Agriculture and Pollution", contains an interesting section dealing with this issue and describing the scale of the problem that we face. I believe that the House should bear the size of the problem in mind when deciding to cut £8 million of public money from this area of expenditure.
In the section entitled "Livestock Waste and Slurry" on page 276—I am sure researchers will want to look it up—we read:
Specialised livestock operations are a very potent source of pollution. The worst problems arise from the slurry systems of pig and dairy farms in the UK … The livestock are housed in such a way that their faeces and urine fall through slatted floors into channels or pits from where they are periodically transferred into storage tanks or lagoons. The resulting nutrient load can be enormous: on the largest feedlots, with 900 to 2,000 animals per hectare, assuming an average animal size of 450 kg, each excreting 0.17 kilos of nitrate a day, the loading to each hectare is between 150 and 250 kgN per day.
The total national pollution load from livestock excretion is thus very large. In the United Kingdom it is equivalent to 150 million people, about two and a half times the human population, while in the USA it is 10 times greater, that is, equivalent to 2 billion people, or 40 per cent. of the world's population. As the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution put it, 'a modem farm of 40 hectares carrying a dairy herd of 50 cows and a pig population based on 50 sows has a potential pollution load equivalent to that of a village of 1,000 inhabitants.'''
I interpret all this to mean that we are dealing with a vast problem—a huge amount of slurry. The public will want legislation in place to ensure that it is all properly disposed of and that, if farmers are not prepared to invest in the equipment needed to comply with the legislation, a regime is put in place to help them, not just in sensitive areas, but in others too. Only thus can we avoid polluting and damaging our environment. That is my case this evening. I am not altogether convinced that Ministers have fully taken into account the huge scale of the problem with which the farming community is required to deal.
I understand that all my hon. Friends have received a fax this afternoon from the National Farmers Union. Its case is that this is an unreasonable economy on the part of the Government and it rejects it.

Mr. Nick Ainger: I represent a constituency which, like that of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), is a high rainfall area. The impact of any heavy periods of rain in a high rainfall area exacerbates the problems that farmers have in controlling the slurry that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has so eloquently described in all its enormity. I should hate to say that it was a load of crap, but basically that is what we are talking about—a large load of crap.
One of the disappointing features of this matter, which is certainly reflected in the communications that we have received from the National Farmers Union, is that the scheme that the Government are trying to dismantle almost lock, stock and barrel has been so successful. Perhaps if the Minister replies to the debate, which I hope that he will, he will touch on the fact that the scheme is basically self-regulating. As farmers make the investment and the work is completed, there is no further call by them on any central grant system. As the improvements take place, the grant required slowly but surely reduces except perhaps in areas where we have new entrants into the

dairy industry. Sadly, new entrants are few and far between, but they may wish to take up the opportunity to make the improvements, particularly as it is difficult to make capital investment when one is starting out and as there is great instability in the dairy industry at present.
Another issue could perhaps increase the loads to which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington referred in Britain. There is a possibility—I put it no stronger than that—that with the public outcry against the export of veal calves we may see a change in legislation that would bring about an increase in the British veal industry. I hope that we do, but that would only add to the problem that the British agricultural industry currently faces.
As other hon. Members have said, the grants are basically for environmental purposes. They do not directly assist the farming industry or improve its profitability. My area is not only a great dairy livestock area but an important tourist area. We are seeing the development of more eco-tourism and activity-based holidays, including both coarse and fly fishing. The cleanliness of our rivers is vital. We know what impact a spillage of nutrient-rich slurry can have on a waterway. It devastates it.
What advice, if any, has the Minister received from the National Rivers Authority on what impact the ending of the grants will have on the quality of our rivers and the level of fish in them? A slurry tank can spill over purely as a result of a sudden enormous downpour in a thunderstorm. It is literally an act of God. A whole river can be devastated. It takes a long time to restock a river with fish.
The Preseli area of my constituency is now an environmentally sensitive area. There is a possibility that farmers in such areas will continue to receive some form of grant aid. Designation as an ESA is an arbitrary way of deciding which areas should receive assistance. The rainfall on one side of the border of the ESA is exactly the same as on the other side. Whether the cows winter for four or five months indoors or not, they produce the same volume of slurry in Preseli as in South Pembrokeshire, Ceredigion or wherever.
Ceredigion and South Pembrokeshire are not designated as environmentally sensitive, yet they have exactly the same problems. It is arbitrary to use designation as a nitrate-vulnerable zone or environmentally sensitive area as the means of determining which areas qualify for grant aid.
As you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the British public want their environment and particularly rivers and the sea to be as clean as possible. A great deal of pressure has been brought to bear on the authorities to upgrade the human sewage discharges into our environment. Yet here we have the Government in the face of this enormous problem—the figures have been quoted to us, and it is the equivalent of the sewage of millions of people—saying that they will in only a few odd areas assist the environment by providing grant aid and the relatively small amounts of money needed to ensure that we have no serious accidents.
Great pressure has been brought to bear on the water companies by the regulators and the European Union to improve sewage discharges. Sadly, it is not the whole nation that is contributing to the clean-up. The poor old water customers, particularly in the south-west of England, face massive bills to clean up sewage discharges. The Government's action seems to fly in the face of public opinion on other forms of environmental pollution. I urge the Minister to reconsider.

Mr. Jack: This has been a useful debate. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their praise and support for what the scheme has achieved. Expenditure of some £150 million on encouraging 11,500 farmers to improve their waste disposal practices is a significant achievement. With respect to the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), in their graphic description of the rising tide, as they put it, of farm waste— [Interruption.]—even in the book which the hon. Member for Workington waves at me—there was perhaps a lack of appreciation of one of the fundamentals of good agricultural practice. All that waste is not bad. It is the way in which it is used that causes the problem.
Through the scheme we have encouraged farmers with good practice to control the use of that waste and prevent it from finding its way into the watercourses. All hon. Members rightly adverted to that as a problem. It is right that part of the advice on good agricultural practice, which will continue to be available free of charge from ADAS, notes that it is possible to make proper agricultural use of waste.

Mr. Ainger: rose—

Mr. Jack: Let me answer the questions that have been raised before more are put to me. The hon. Gentleman asked about the National Rivers Authority. The NRA would be the first to admit that we have made progress. It also knows that we have not abandoned ship over the problem. We are concentrating our efforts on nitrate-vulnerable zones. We will continue to allow £2 million for research and development, and to deal with farm waste handling systems and acknowledge our responsibilities in that area.

Mr. Ainger: The Minister did not appreciate my argument and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). We are not saying that the industry needs advice on how to use slurry. The grants were to enable it to be collected safely so that it did not pollute waterways. Farmers fully appreciate the advantages of slurry— less need for artificial fertilisers, for example— and want to collect it safely, which is why they need the grant. They do not need advice on how to use it.

Mr. Jack: With respect, I pointed out that we spent three times as much as we set out to do—£150 million of public money—to encourage farmers to pursue what should be their responsibility, as good husbanders of the land, not to pollute. All hon. Members will understand the principle that the polluter pays. We have been paying to help potential polluters not to pollute.
The hon. Member for Workington should remember that, on the other side of the equation, fines of up to £20,000 can be imposed if people do not fulfil their responsibility not to pollute.

Mr. Tyler: rose—

Mr. Jack: I will give way, but this will be the last time.

Mr. Tyler: The Minister referred briefly to advice from the National Rivers Authority and I hope that he will expand on it. I understand that it believes that only a comparatively small proportion of the work that needs to

be done on farms—on dairy holdings in particular, but also on beef holdings—has been done. It does not believe that the danger will be restricted to nitrate-vulnerable zones, but that it is much more widespread. The less well-equipped and financed farms will find it difficult. What advice has he received from the NRA on those three matters?

Mr. Jack: I hope that I will not be guilty of misleading the House, but I have not received any advice from the NRA. It might have sent us some thoughts, but I do not know without examining the correspondence files in detail, and I hope that hon. Members will accept that as an honest statement from the Dispatch Box.
The National Rivers Authority may continue to underscore the importance of preventing pollution, which it polices. We genuinely think that we have played our part, in the way that I described, in achieving better control of pollution. We have not walked away from our responsibilities—the advice, good practice and research and development are all still there. We understand the problem.

Mr. Ainger: rose—

Mr. Jack: I must press on. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) informed me that he could not be in his place for my closing speech. I understand that he is meeting some farmers. He emphasised the importance of the role of small farmers in these matters. The measures were designed for the small farmer and that support remains for plans that have already been approved. Many small farmers will have benefited from part of the £150 million that we spent and many in the nitrate-vulnerable zones will continue to be able to benefit.
As I said in my opening speech, part of the package of measures that my right hon. Friend the Minister said would form part of the Ministry's future programme will offer support in those difficult rural areas. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) will understand, under objective 5b assistance, we are able to use resources to strengthen the rural economy and opportunities for new forms of economic activity in such areas—the hon. Member for Pembroke mentioned farm holidays. That is one way in which our resources can help the farmers whom my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury mentioned.
Farmers have had five years to take advantage of the scheme and have been aware of many of the important messages on pollution. The fact that 11,500 have taken advantage of it is a clear sign of its success.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) asked several questions and I hope that he will have noted from my remarks that ADAS will remain in place and will continue to offer advice. I also told him about some of the plus points, such as the way in which we managed to redistribute our resources. I do not want this debate to be quite as rumbustious as that of last night, but the hon. Gentleman did not commit his party to restoring the money, or tell us whether it would consider any scheme if, God forbid, it were ever to form a Government. He criticised us for examining our priorities and deciding that, if we had achieved our objectives, the time was right to move on to other schemes—I demonstrated that we had done so when I mentioned the reduction in pollution incidents. He would live in a world


where all schemes stayed in place for ever and a day, and we would never have the resources to find new opportunities to assist the farming industry.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Jack: I will give way as the hon. Gentleman is such a nice chap.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I ask a simple question? If during the next few years after the scheme has ended, it is reported to Ministers that farmers are not complying and are expressing their difficulties to the enforcement authorities—perhaps telling them that they cannot afford to install the equipment—and that there has been a decline in standards, will they review the position?

Mr. Jack: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to trap myself or my right hon. Friends with a commitment on future expenditure.

Mr. Ainger: The hon. Gentleman asked my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) to do so.

Mr. Jack: Hear me out. We are committed—[Interruption.] I want to tell the House what we are committed to spending our money on. We are committed to providing information to farmers and we will continue to monitor the number of pollution incidents—the Conservatives are sensible and flexible on such matters—and will obviously keep them under review.
On wider developments in the environment, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe asked me how it would all fit together. The new environment agency will combine the NRA and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall said, the NRA has a keen interest in and will continue to take responsibility for pollution as part of the new agency. The inspectorate has a role, but it will be concentrated on large industry and not on agriculture. It will be up to us to monitor and listen to what the NRA and others have to say.
Clearly, the grants programme was a response to a high level of pollution and we have shown that, when there is a problem, we are prepared to act.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe asked several more questions. Help with farm waste systems will still be available. When the nitrate-vulnerable zones are defined, we will have a clear idea of the type of help and scheme that will be required. He will be aware that the consultation process and the consideration of representations is continuing. We are listening and talking carefully to farmers. They will have another opportunity to comment on the revised areas. Once we have all that information, we will know what type of scheme will be necessary. Resources will be provided to assist farmers facing difficulties in those areas.
I thank all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I shall reflect carefully on what they said and I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 3002), dated 25th November 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.

Trunk Roads (Airedale and Wharfedale)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Gary Waller: I am delighted to have this opportunity to raise a number of important issues relating to trunk road schemes in Airedale and Wharfedale.
The saga of trunk road proposals in those two valleys is long; indeed, some may think of it as interminable. A plan to bypass Ilkley on the River Wharfe was drawn up as long ago as the 1930s, while the original public inquiry on the Airedale route in 1975 and 1976 was a landmark in that the inspector ultimately abandoned it following nine days of disruption, initiated by the famous or notorious—depending on one's viewpoint—Mr. John Tyme and others, resulting in changes to the rules governing such public inquiries.
Nothing that I intend to say tonight is intended to cast aspersions on my hon. Friend the Minister. He is carrying the baton passed to him by others. However, I cannot help thinking that part of the problem has been the fact that so many Ministers have had responsibility for roads since the mid-1980s. As they have come and gone, continuity has been lacking. There has certainly never been an opportunity for the public to participate in a proper public debate about all the possible solutions, especially to the problems relating to Saltaire and Shipley, to which reference will be made later.
It is significant that two of the most important decisions affecting the area were taken in the early 1980s on their own initiative by Ministers who both held office for a considerable period and thus had had time to become fully familiar with the position.
My right hon. and learned friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) came as the then Roads Minister to the town of Ilkley and decided to remove from the programme the riverside bypass route, which had been in place for some 40 years. He was followed at a later date by my noble Friend, now the Baroness Chalker, who walked up the narrow main street in Addingham village, saw the heavy lorries forcing pedestrians aside, and decided there and then that the Addingham bypass on the A65, long delayed by the former Labour Administration, must be restored to the programme as soon as possible.
Ministers can have that impact on the roads programme in particular areas. I wish my hon. Friend the present Minister for Railways and Roads a long and distinguished career in his present role.
I share an interest in both the A629-A650 Airedale route and the A65 through Wharfedale with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), who has carried this burden for even longer than I have, and he hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during this debate.
First, may I deal with the problem of the A650 route, parts 1 and 2 of which have now been completed, but which stops abruptly at Crossflatts, almost on the boundary between the Keighley and Shipley constituencies. Because the missing section represents an essential link with the major West Riding cities and the motorway network to the south of Bradford, my


constituents and companies in my constituency have suffered the unacceptable delays and economic disadvantage represented by the bottleneck in Bingley.
The case for building the Bingley bypass as soon as possible can be simply stated. The road is justified on economic, environmental and road safety grounds. A further key factor in this case, however, is that the advance engineering work, costing up to £;12 million, has already been completed. It involved the diversion of the Leeds and Liverpool canal, new bridges and engineering work on the adjoining railway line. In effect, we now have a linear building site through the town of Bingley, with no work taking place on it.
I shall outline in detail the economic case for the road from Keighley's viewpoint in a moment. In environmental terms, too, the argument is strong. The quality of people's lives would certainly improve if many vehicles, including a steady stream of heavy lorries, were removed from the town centre.
Exhaust emissions increase dramatically when vehicles are stationary or just crawl along, which happens in Bingley every day. The many blighted shops that have stood with their fronts boarded up for months, illustrated graphically by the Bingley Civic Society, might reopen if the bypass were built. In road safety terms, too, there must be obvious advantages in keeping through traffic and pedestrians apart, and there would also be scope for traffic management measures.
It would be easy to spend the rest of my time and that of the Minister reading out letters from individuals, companies and organisations in my constituency pleading for the completion of the Bingley bypass. I shall not do so, partly because my hon. Friend's Department received copies of most of them in the latter part of last year—regrettably, it failed to heed them—but also because I want to leave my hon. Friend sufficient time to respond, even given that this Adjournment debate is taking place at an hour which, in the past, would have been regarded as exceptionally early.
To set those letters in context, I should say that Keighley's unemployment problem is severe in the inner part of the town and on some of its estates. It may not be apparent from the bald figures, which take into account the hinterland of the travel-to-work area. Unlike Bradford, Keighley has not benefited from regional assistance, from city challenge or so far from the unitary regeneration budget.
On 1 July 1988—nearly seven years ago—I initiated a debate on local trunk road construction and referred to a survey of local companies that I had conducted, showing that more than 90 per cent. of companies responding had stated that completion of that road was vital to their future development; that figure would be just as high today.
Last week, Peter Black, a public company based in Keighley for many years, announced the unavoidable but no less shocking news of 285 local redundancies, which the company has done its best to avoid. The absence of a good road link may not have been the decisive factor but it certainly did not help. Peter Black is now developing its distribution business, and the managing director of that subsidiary, Mr. H. E. Johnson, writes:
In 1994 we appointed the consulting arm of KPMG Peat Marwick to carry out an exercise to review the feasibility of expanding our distribution business. One of the major conclusions

was that there is a cost disadvantage of approximately £200,000 per annum as a result of being based in Keighley. Currently it takes an hour to cover the journey between the motorway network and our distribution centre and as we make a significant number of journeys per annum this amounts to a substantial excess cost. In this increasingly competitive world this cost cannot be ignored.
We have found the labour market in Keighley to be very flexible and competitive. This is certain to be attractive to any company considering establishing a new base or expanding an existing business. However, the lack of an effective road network will almost certainly discourage them. We frequently receive comments from our customers as to the inaccessibility of our site and as a consequence they visit far less frequently than they would otherwise like. It takes as long to drive the 18 miles from the M62 to Keighley as it does to cover the 75 miles from Nottingham to the M62.
An additional problem is that of recruitment. Occasionally we are unable to fill a vacancy with a local person and in this circumstance we have experienced difficulty in recruiting key members of our team because of the extended travelling time to and from Keighley".
I emphasise the estimated annual cost of £200,000 per annum to just one firm. How can we attract new companies to Keighley and help existing ones expand when they carry such a burden? Where do we find new jobs for the 285 people soon to be out of work?
The president of the Bradford chamber of commerce, Mr. Andrew Wade, writes:
The Bingley By-pass is desperately needed—the character of the town centre which is divided by the main A650 is rapidly being ruined as the uncertainty continues and shoppers go elsewhere … journey times between Keighley and Bradford, the two main centres within the metropolitan district, are impossible to predict, with the result that delivery times and meeting times can only be achieved with certainty by allotting additional travelling time or using rat runs".
Charles Forgan, the chief executive of Bradford Breakthrough—the organisation that brings together the public and private sectors throughout the district—writes of
the dismay and incomprehension which will be felt
about the continuing delay
not only by the business community in Bradford, Bingley and Keighley but also by residential and commercial groups who have been united in their determination that the Bingley relief road should be built".
Mr. Geoffrey Lister, chief executive of the Bradford and Bingley building society, states that construction is
a matter of extreme urgency.
The society, he writes, may have to "consider other options" for the centralisation of its computer operations, especially if there is a further significant delay.
Professor David Johns, vice-chancellor of Bradford university, states:
the lack of progress means that more damage is done to the environment the longer the traffic jams remain".
He believes that delay is causing widespread economic harm.
Mr. Norman Finnigan, personnel and operations director of Grattan plc, the largest private employer in Bradford; Mr. J. P. Taylor, company secretary of Allied Colloids plc, with 2,000 local staff; and the Very Reverend John Richardson, Provost of Bradford cathedral, are united in complaining that it is ridiculous to spend £12 million on advance works and then to gain no benefit from the investment because the job is left half-done.
The local newspapers, the Keighley News and the Telegraph and Argus, have pleaded for action, for the sake of all sections of the community. Mr. Geoff Smith and Mr. Iain Copping, chairman and director of the


Keighley Business Forum, have added their voices to the clamour. All the parties on Bradford council are united in their support for the bypass. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), who cannot be present tonight, is a resident of Bingley, and he has asked me to tell the Minister that he too supports the call for the bypass.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to refer finally to someone who has good cause to look to the future—16-year-old John Robinson, who showed me the letter he wrote to the Prime Minister just a few days ago, in which he said:
I know from watching the news that the Department of Transport is cutting back its road building plans for the future. I feel that the new road is a desperate need not just because of traffic congestion but also to secure jobs at major companies, which may have to move because of a poor transport link out of Keighley through Bradford, to the rest of the country.
During the 1988 debate, to which I have already referred, I described the situation as intolerable. The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), responded by saying:
We intend to press on. Our aim is to provide a new continuous high standard route to link Bradford and Skipton … The only option that we must reject is doing nothing. The area deserves better than that."—[Official Report, 1 July 1988; Vol. 136, c. 709–10.]
Well, things may have happened since 1988, but still no road exists. The area indeed deserves better than that. Furthermore, it is totally inexplicable that, when the Department categorised road schemes last year, the Bingley bypass, which must be considered by anybody with anything about him to be extremely urgent after all those years, was only placed in the second group of less urgent schemes. It is no good anybody saying that some priority 2 roads may be built before some priority 1 schemes, because that grading sends out a clear signal—one which I utterly reject.
I would like to see the comparative COBA—cost-benefit analysis—work carried out by the Department and the Highways Agency, because I will take some convincing that, on economic, environmental and road safety grounds, the route is not. extremely urgent—even if the half-completed advance works are discounted. If one takes them into account, it is frankly scandalous and farcical not to press ahead as quickly as possible.
If the Department has left undone for more than 20 years what it should have done for the Bingley bypass, many residents of the Wharfe valley feel that it has done what it should not have done on the A65. Bypasses have been provided on that road for, among other places, Settle, Skipton, Draughton, Addingham, and Burley-in-Wharfedale. There are now proposals to construct further schemes soon at Chelker and Manor Park.
I am sure that all those places deserve and need bypasses, but it is hardly surprising that many people in Ilkley, for which much preparatory work on a bypass has also been done, suspect that there is a plan to divert traffic on to the A65. There is even talk of a motorway through Wharfedale, although that term is more than slightly misleading, since much of the road is single-carriageway standard only.
Assuming, as I do, that there is no such conspiracy, nevertheless the Department and the Highways Agency should accept that major improvement schemes to

upgrade parts of the A65 are bound to have a cumulative effect in attracting traffic to the route. Following the recent work of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, that principle is now generally accepted.
That effect is bound to be intensified if, even before the completion of the Burley-in-Wharfedale bypass, which has certainly been much needed, an announcement is made that the Manor Park bends scheme is to start in the next financial year. The Minister should appreciate that the Manor Park bends scheme has been in gestation for a fraction of the time of the Bingley bypass, and that its benefits are essentially based on road safety factors alone.
Furthermore, by further improving the A65 ahead of the A650, some traffic will be diverted from the latter to the former, bearing in mind the congestion in Bingley, thus further adding to the conviction of many that the Department of Transport wishes to see an increase in traffic on the A65 to justify the construction of a bypass around Ilkley, which is, as everybody knows, a highly contentious proposal.
The road safety arguments in favour of eliminating the Manor Park bends on the A65 are formidable—all the more so following two tragic fatal accidents in recent weeks. I do not agree, however, that there is a case for building a massive four-lane highway alongside the existing road while retaining the latter in situ for local traffic.
That proposal needs to be seen in conjunction with Bradford council's unitary development plan, in so far as it affects the Ilkley area. That plan has led many to fear that the essential character of a beautiful valley might easily be lost.
I believe that it is also quite unnecessary to construct a large roundabout at Ben Rhydding, at the western end of the new stretch of road, taking an acre of land away from the Ben Rhydding sports club's car park. The club quite naturally looks ahead to the next stage, which would be an Ilkley bypass. That would remove a great deal more land from the playing fields which are used by hundreds of people every weekend.
It should be borne in mind that we are talking about a steep-sided valley, and I am not aware of any alternative accessible land of similar scale to which the club might have access. At the very least, the club is entitled to be kept much more fully informed than it has been when its very existence is at stake.
As I have already suggested, a question mark hangs over the Ilkley bypass, which is now classed as a category 4 scheme. I welcome the opportunity for further consideration in the light of developing trends. I know that many organisations and individuals want to contribute to the continuing debate. The downside to that debate is the uncertainty which it has created, but I believe that most people will accept that that uncertainty cannot be avoided as we continue to consider the important issues that must be addressed before a decision is reached.
I welcome the existence of organisations such as the Wharfe Valley Road Forum, which is led exceedingly well by Dr. Jim Burton. It regularly brings together a wide range of interested organisations from the area and beyond to discuss road issues.
In the coming months, I hope that the Minister will find time in his schedule to visit Airedale and Wharfedale. It is easy to look at proposals and plans on paper, but it is


a different matter to visit an area. It is essential to visit Airedale and Wharfedale to appreciate the problems properly. problems.
I recall that, when the previous Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), visited, he was surprised and delighted by the beauty of the lovely valleys. He started to appreciate the concerns that had been expressed by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley.
I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that we will provide him with a generous Yorkshire welcome. I am sure that he appreciates the great concerns that are felt, and I ask him to address them urgently.

Sir Marcus Fox: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on securing the Adjournment debate. I am grateful to him for giving me two or three minutes to add to his remarks.
I am grateful to the Minister—at the present time, it is rare to say such a thing to the Minister for Railways and Roads—for the Burley bypass and the announcement to correct the Manor Park bends, which have been such an accident blackspot. However, I must not lull him into a sense of false security, because section 3 of the Aire valley is not simply a trunk road—it is a bypass round the town of Bingley.
I must declare an interest, as I reside in Bingley. My constituents, who number just short of 70,000, all understand that what was a thriving community has become a shadow of its former self. The town centre no longer deserves to be named as such. Congestion and pollution have forced the public to shop elsewhere. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley said, the town is now occupied by traffic that trundles through ceaselessly, especially heavy lorries. It is no exaggeration to say that the quality of life for thousands of my constituents is deteriorating fast.
People are inclined to forget that there is such a thing as northbound traffic, which is vital commercially. It is a vital route. Ours is an area built on trade and commerce—engineering and textiles are just two of the older industries. However, the A650 and the A65 are the main trunk roads from West Yorkshire to the west and east of Scotland, Cumbria and north Lancashire.
The tragedy is that, in the 25 years that I have been the Member of Parliament for Shipley, I have somehow failed to ensure that that road is completed. It is now perilously close to Bradford, and I use that word deliberately because—there are other plans further ahead than Bradford—no one can understand why that route, which was previously thought to be important when the money was available, somehow now does not warrant the same priority.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister fully understands the situation. I regret that the Government have had to make economies, but I plead with him at the earliest opportunity to recognise the importance of the matter to so many of my constituents and friends.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): The development of the Department's schemes

in the Airedale and Wharfedale valleys has a long history, which my hon. Friends know extremely well, and which I need not rehearse to the House again tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) suggested that the rapid comings and goings of Ministers with my current responsibilities in the Department have led to a lack of continuity in considering the importance of those schemes. However, I can assure his constituents that any lack of continuity among Ministers is more than compensated for by his continuing persistence in arguing the case on behalf of his constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) has also shown persistence—he reminded us that he has battled in support of those schemes for 25 years.
In Airedale, the Department has seven schemes. Of those, two are completed and five are still in preparation. The aim of those schemes is to provide a good route between the Airedale business centres and the motorway network, to secure a raft of economic and environmental benefits for communities in the area and contribute significantly to economic regeneration by improved transport links. It will connect the M62 motorway via the city of Bradford metropolitan council schemes, which have already been built or are being planned, and the A650 trunk road bypass of Drighlington, opened by the Department in 1991.
Airedale has seen considerable investment in recent years, both in the schemes that have been completed and in the construction of advanced works for schemes yet to be built. The two completed schemes are the A650 between Kildwick and Beechcliffe, which was opened to traffic in August 1988 at a construction cost of £20 million, and the Victoria Park to Crossflatts section, which was opened to traffic in October 1988 at a construction cost of £16 million.
Good progress is being made on the five schemes in preparation, and those include the Bingley relief road scheme, which both my hon. Friends mentioned. That is a three-mile dual carriageway bypass of Bingley town centre. It will relieve heavy congestion in the town centre, by removing about 80 per cent. of the traffic. It will bring significant environmental and safety improvements to Bingley.
Good progress is being made on that scheme, and several advance works have been completed. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley referred to those. One major advance works contract is currently under way—the construction of retaining walls at Crossflatts railway station, prior to electrification of the Leeds to Skipton railway line. Work on that commenced in July of last year and should be completed by the spring of 1995. As my hon. Friends know, all the statutory orders for the Bingley relief road have now been completed.
Both my hon. Friends reminded the House that the Bingley relief road scheme was categorised as priority 2 in the review undertaken of the roads programme in March 1994 and, although it is true that, in general, priority 2 schemes are likely to have longer lead times, some priority 2 schemes—which could include the Bingley relief road—may be built before all the priority 1 schemes have been completed, primarily because their statutory process is already further advanced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley has argued that there are strong economic and environmental reasons for making progress with that scheme. I accept that there


could be some absurdity if advance works were completed too long before the roads that they are designed to serve. That factor has some influence on my thinking.
There is also a misconception—indeed, a fear—that the construction of the Bingley relief road may be delayed as a result of the expensive tunnel option for the contiguous Saltaire relief road scheme. I can give my hon. Friends a categorical assurance that such fears are unfounded.
The Saltaire scheme is at a very much earlier stage of development, while, as I have said, the Bingley scheme is very near the end of the preparatory stage, and could be ready to start construction. The Saltaire scheme will not influence or delay the provision of funds for, the Bingley relief road scheme, because, although both those schemes are part of the longer-term strategy that we have developed for the road needs of the area, the schemes can stand alone in terms of development and of finance, and are not in any way interdependent.
The other schemes in preparation in Airedale include the A650 Shipley eastern bypass, which is planned to provide a link with the local highway authority schemes in Bradford to the South and to the M62 motorway. A preferred route for that scheme, a 1.3 mile dual carriageway, was announced in March 1992. That is a priority 1 scheme, and we are pressing ahead with the design as quickly as possible. It is intended that it should be constructed before the Saltaire relief road is built.
However, the development of the Shipley eastern bypass depends on sufficient work on the Saltaire relief road options being completed to determine the way that the two schemes should eventually be linked. The next stage for the Shipley eastern bypass will be the publication of draft orders.
The A650 Hard Ings road improvement is a short length of single carriageway road, joining the already constructed sections of the Airedale route, which lie to either side of it. The existing road is to be improved to dual carriageway standard. The improvement will be achieved by widening the existing road on its northern side. Widening the road to the north avoids residential properties and the sensitive area of Victoria Park, which is one of the few areas of open space in Keighley.

Mr. Waller: I appreciate the comments that my hon. Friend has made about the Hard Ings road scheme, but could I ask him to take special care as regards the two important employers on the north side of that road? I believe that both deserve to be kept fully informed about the intentions of the Highways Agency and the Department, because both are expanding companies that provide the jobs that we need in Keighley, and the uncertainty that clouds their future is worrying.

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend made that argument at the meeting that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley had with me last week. Those points were noted, and we will act upon them.
Following public consultation, the preferred route for that scheme was announced in March 1992. The draft Side Roads Order was published in October last year. However, it may be necessary to hold a public inquiry to deal with the objections that have been received, of which there have been 67 to date.
The final scheme in the raft is the A629 Skipton to Kildwick improvement, which went to public inquiry in October 1993. The inspector's report has been received, and is currently being considered.
On 19 December 1994, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced the new starts for 1995–96. Those included the A65 Manor Park improvement scheme, and the A65 Hellifield and Long Preston bypass in Wharfedale. Those schemes are much needed on environmental and safety grounds.
In Wharfedale, two projects have already been completed: the Addingham bypass and the Draughton bypass. The Addingham bypass was opened to traffic in October 1990. It is a two-mile-long single carriageway bypass to the south of the village. As a result of the bypass, traffic levels in the village have fallen from 14,000 per day to 4,800—a reduction of two thirds.
The majority of heavy goods vehicles have been removed, which has considerably improved road safety through the centre of the village. The personal injury accident rate has dropped from approximately eight per year to less than one. Noise, air pollution and congestion levels have also been significantly reduced.
The Draughton bypass was opened to traffic in December 1991. It is a 1.4-mile-long single carriageway bypass to the south of the village. The village itself is a conservation area surrounded by open countryside. The bypass takes 7,700 vehicles per day, of which about 14 per cent. are heavy goods vehicles, leaving only about 300 vehicles—predominantly local traffic—in the centre of the village.
Those schemes are prime examples of what the Government seek to achieve through the construction of rural bypass schemes which improve the quality of life and reduce accident rates in towns and villages by the removal of through traffic.
Other schemes in Wharfedale include the Chelker bends improvement, the Chelker to Addingham improvement, the Ilkley bypass, the Manor Park improvement, the Burley-in-Wharfedale bypass and the Otley to Burley improvement.
The Chelker bends improvement is located between the Draughton bypass and the Addingham to Chelker improvement. The existing road has poor alignment and a very sharp bend at the western end of Chelker reservoir Good progress is being made with the scheme. In his announcement of 6 December 1994, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State identified it as a regional improvement scheme that will start in the coming financial year.
The Ilkley bypass is a four-mile dual carriageway. The preferred route was announced in December 1992 and was selected because it was considered to have the least impact on the environment and to take account of the many local comments received. However, as there were more pressing and urgent cases elsewhere, the scheme was placed in the longer-term category in the roads programme review and there will be no further work on the scheme until it can once again be considered for entry to the active programme.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley said, that gives plenty of time for further consideration to be given to the scheme. Meanwhile, the preferred route has been


announced and safeguarded for planning purposes. That ensures relief for people whose property might be blighted as a result of the scheme. There is no further work on the scheme at present.
The Manor Park improvement aims to bring about a significant improvement to road safety, especially at the eastern end of the scheme where a series of bends have contributed to an accident rate which is more than twice the national average. It is contiguous to the Burley-in-Wharfedale bypass which is currently under construction and which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley mentioned in a favourable light.
The new two-mile carriageway will run alongside the existing carriageway, which will be retained as a local access road. It will terminate in a roundabout at the western end, thus helping to control the speed of traffic entering Ilkely. The scheme was given the go-ahead in December 1992, following a public inquiry at which all draft orders were considered. As I explained earlier, the scheme was included in the list of new starts for the next financial year announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 19 December 1994.
The Burley-in-Wharfedale bypass, which is currently under construction, should be open to traffic before the end of March. I know that both my hon. Friends hope to be present on that happy occasion. I am not sure whether I shall be able to join them on that day, but I shall certainly take up the generous invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley to visit the Airedale and Wharfedale area, to enjoy the generous Yorkshire welcome of which he assured me and to see for myself the land where the road schemes will be provided. Like my hon. Friend, I find it far more instructive to look at the land relating to schemes than to try to understand them from reading maps.
I hope that my hon. Friends will conclude from my remarks that the Government are strongly committed to major road improvements in both Airedale and Wharfedale. That is demonstrated by the level of investment to date and the volume of preparation work which is currently being undertaken. I commend both my hon. Friends for their strong and vigorous advocacy of the economic and environmental needs of their constituents, both individuals and businesses. I look forward to meeting some of their constituents when I am able to accept their invitation to visit the region.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock.